Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Boulton: I desire to present a humble petition from 106,000 old age pensioners in the Sheffield, South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire area, which showeth:
That there prevails much poverty among your petitioners owing to the inadequacy of the present old age pension causing many of your petitioners to have to apply for public assistance, or else be a burden upon their sons and daughters. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House will, as soon as possible, meet their need by increasing the amount of the present old age pension.

Mr. Thorne: May I be allowed to ask the Prime Minister whether he will be good enough to send along the reply to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White)?

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Amendments include (1) a Clause altering in accordance with an agreement made with interested bodies, the amount of compensation water to be delivered by the company, the effect of the Clause and agreement being to increase the amount of compensation water, as compared with the amount required by the Bill as it left the House; and (2) a protective Clause in favour of the Somerset County Council. The other Amendments are of a purely drafting nature.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: These Amendments are of a drafting nature except (1) a protective Clause in

favour of certain statutory undertakings, and (2) the deletion of a Clause enabling the corporation to vary the respective widths of carriageways and footways.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: The Amendments in this case are all of a drafting nature.

Amendments made.

Macclesfield Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).

Address for
Return of the Budget of the Governor-General for India in Council for 1939–40." —[Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Rupert Arnold Brabner, Esquire, for the Borough of Hythe.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PROHIBITION LAW (BRITISH TROOPS).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether British troops quartered in India will be excluded from the operation of any local law prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquor?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): In none of the five Provinces where prohibition has been introduced so far, are British troops prevented from obtaining alcoholic liquor. In four of these Provinces the prohibition measures impose no restrictions upon them, while in the remaining Province they may drink in messes and canteens without permits. Any proposals for the


extension of prohibition will be carefully watched by the Government of India from this point of view.

Sir A. Knox: Will the Minister remember that any proposal to interfere with the British soldier's beer, would have a disastrous effect?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see to it that the convenience of British residents in India does not interfere with the efforts of Indian reformers?

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister also see to it that these chaps always get butter?

TRADE UNIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state according to the latest information in his possession the number of trade unions, including federations, at present registered under the India Trade Union Act?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Member in reply to a similar question on 8th May last.

Mr. Day: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was going to inquire into the number of trade unions and federations, can he say whether that information has been received yet?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think in my reply to the hon. Gentleman I expressed regret that I had not the figures for which he asked. I pointed out that the administration in regard to trade unions was a matter for the provincial governments, and that my Noble Friend would not normally get information of this kind. I also said that it was not customary for information in regard to these matters, which are under the provincial government, to be supplied. I am sorry if the hon. Member thought that I undertook to obtain the information.

Mr. Day: In reply to a supplementary question, did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman say he would have inquiries made?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have given the hon. Member the gist of the reply both to his main question and to the supplementary question.

FAR EAST (SITUATION).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the present position at Tientsin, and the progress of the Tokyo negotiations?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The general position at Tientsin is unchanged. No incidents have been reported. The milk situation is fairly satisfactory: supplies are good but continue to be subject to delays at the barriers.
As regards the second part of the question, since 15th July preliminary conversations have been proceeding at Tokyo between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs before starting negotiations for the settlement of the situation at Tientsin. At the outset of the discussions, the Japanese Government expressed the view that, if progress was to be made in the removal of misunderstandings and the establishment of better relations, it was essential to recognise the background against which the situation at Tientsin should be viewed. This had nothing to do with His Majesty's Government's China policy but was a question of fact. Hostilities were proceeding in China on a large scale. The Japanese Army had to provide for its own security and maintain public order in the occupied areas and was, therefore, obliged to take action to see that these causes were not prejudiced.
In order to clear the way for the Tientsin discussions, His Majesty's Government have accordingly agreed upon the following formula with the Japanese Government:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom fully recognise the actual situation in China where hostilities on a large scale are in progress and note that, as long as that state of affairs continues to exist, the Japanese forces in China have special requirements for the purpose of safeguarding their own security and maintaining public order in regions under their control and that they have to suppress or remove any such acts or causes as will obstruct them or benefit their enemy. His Majesty's Government have no intention of countenancing any act or measures prejudicial to the attainment of the above-mentioned objects by Japanese forces and they will take this opportunity to confirm their policy in this respect by making it plain to British authorities and British nationals in China that they should refrain from such acts and measures.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that nothing will be agreed to in these forthcoming negotiations which is calculated to impair Chinese currency, or to impair the right of this country to grant credits to the Chinese Government for any purpose whatsoever?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the discussions are confined to the local issues at Tientsin.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Do not these concessions, in effect, constitute a de facto recognition of Japanese sovereignty in respect of those parts of Chinese territory which are now under the control of the Japanese armed forces?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: What territories are referred to by the Prime Minister when he speaks of territories under effective Japanese control?

The Prime Minister: I would not like to give a definition of that in answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Benn: Have we not given an undertaking to pursue a certain course of policy in this area? What is the area?

The Prime Minister: The area under Japanese control.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer not mean that the Government have now definitely taken the side of Japan?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. De Chair: Does not the answer mean that we are preserving strict neutrality?

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the declaration he has made to-day there is any change whatever in British policy in regard to China?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the declaration does not connote any change in British Government policy in China?

Mr. Gallacher: Will Chinese currency not interfere with the Japanese?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on the detention of Colonel Spear?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The officer in charge of His Majesty's Embassy at Peking has been informed by his Japanese colleague that no formal trial has started and that preliminary investigations are still proceeding. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is maintaining the closest touch with the Japanese Government, and my Noble Friend trusts that in view of the improved atmosphere this question may soon be settled.

Mr. Henderson: Will it be made clear to the Japanese Government that His Majesty's Government hold them responsible?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the safety of the personnel of the English Presbyterian Mission Hospital at Chuanchow, in the Swatow-Fuchien district of China; and whether supplies of food and drugs are now available?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is calling for a report on this subject, but he has no reason to believe that the personnel of the English Presbyterian Mission are not safe.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the Chinese silver reserve in Tientsin, the estimated value of which is £2,500,000, will not be surrendered to the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese Government have never formulated to His Majesty's Government any proposals in regard to the disposal of this silver.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the silver reserve lodged in a British bank, and would it not be advisable, in view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs in Tientsin, to move it out of harm's way?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Chinese Government might be anxious for us to hand it over to the Japanese?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

PROPAGANDA (PALESTINE).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has had brought to his notice the recrudescence of broadcasts authorised by the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, which are de signed to incite he Arabs to violence against the Jews in Palestine; and what steps he proposes to take against this abuse of the international broadcasting system which is likely to lead to deaths and destruction of property?

Mr. Butler: It is unfortunately true that much propaganda of an anti-British nature is published in the German Arabic broadcasts and much inaccurate information especially regarding Palestine, but they do not appear to contain any direct incitement to violence; the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: If nothing can be done by way of intervention with the German Government, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of action being taken by the Palestinian Government, and would it not be well for the High Commissioner to broadcast denials of these allegations?

Mr. Butler: The British Broadcasting Corporation have broadcast denials of the worst of these allegations which, as I have said before, are without any foundation or truth. I do not think a direct approach would be likely to achieve the result which the hon. and gallant Member desires.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Would it not be better if we had more money available for propaganda?

INHERITANCES AND LEGACIES (BLOCKED ACCOUNT).

Mr. Fleming: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that under German law money becoming due by way of inheritance or legacies to residents of other countries is transferred to a blocked account which can only be used for a limited number of purposes, which prevents the said money leaving the Reich; and whether he will enter into negotiations with the German Government with a view to agreement on some more satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are aware of the fact that under German

law money becoming due by way of inheritance or legacies to residents of other countries is transferred to a blocked account in Germany, and they are giving the matter their careful consideration.

Mr. Fleming: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on 16th December last a reciprocal agreement was arrived at between the United States and the German Reich on this matter, and will he consider taking similar steps to force Germany to come to an agreement?

Mr. Butler: I have said that we have this matter under consideration, and I will certainly pay due attention to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir William Davison: Will my right hon. Friend see that whatever regulations apply to this country and Germany, similar regulations shall apply also to Germany and this country?

BRITISH SUBJECTS' ARREST, VIENNA.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether Miss Church and Mr. John Lennox, who are under judicial arrest in Vienna, have been allowed yet to receive visits from consular officers; if not, whether he will make a strong protest through the proper channels against the refusal to allow these persons to have legal assistance; and whether he can say how long they have been under arrest without trial?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The date of Miss Church's arrest is given as 21st March and that of Mr. Lennox as 25th March. There are no legal or treaty grounds for insisting that prisoners arrested on suspicion in Germany shall be allowed legal assistance before a charge has been formulated against them. But I can give a categorical assurance that no effort has been or will be spared to move the German authorities to expedite the investigation in order that the prisoners may be brought before a court and allowed normal facilities at the earliest possible moment. The Acting Consul-General at Vienna reported last Saturday that the examining magistrate expects to complete his investigations during the course of this week.

Sir P. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the very


prolonged delay, now going into several months, before these people have the advantage of having the case put against them and brought before the court?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, but this long delay is regretted and has already been the subject of representations by His Majesty's Government.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German authorities gave a promise as long ago as 26th May that Mr. Lennox should be allowed to write to his wife, that that promise has not been kept, and that Mr. Lennox has not been allowed to write since the time of his arrest.

Mr. Butler: My information is that the prisoners are allowed to write one letter weekly to their relatives, but I will investigate the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

BROADCASTING (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will arrange for short weekly broadcasts in Hungarian, Yugoslavian, Rumanian, and the Czech languages, in view of the anti-British propaganda at present being carried on in Central and Eastern Europe over the wireless?

Mr. Butler: The question of a possible extension of the present series of foreign language broadcasts is being sympathetically considered by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the success of the B.B.C. broadcasts in Germany?

Mr. Butler: Certainly.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider extending the broadcasts to Spain where there is also much anti-British propaganda at the inspiration of Berlin and Rome?

Mr. Butler: There are already two kinds of Spanish broadcasts done by the B.B.C.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent broadcasts in Arabic containing false allegations against the conduct of the British troops in Palestine, he will con-

sider arranging for authentic broadcasts to be made from this country to the German people about the methods of expropriation of people of German origin in the Austrian Tyrol?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has been informed by the B.B.C. that descriptions of the situation in the South Tyrol have been given on several occasions in their daily broadcasts in German, as have denials of the false allegations against British troops in Palestine, which have been repeatedly and authoritatively given in this House and elsewhere.

ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. Dalton: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make regarding the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

The Prime Minister: Fresh instructions were sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on 21st July and a further meeting with M. Molotov was held yesterday, but we have not yet been able to study the report of our Ambassador, which has only just been received.

Mr. Dalton: In view of the grave concern felt in many quarters in this country owing to the long delay in these negotiations, can the right hon. Gentleman now undertake that this House shall not adjourn for the summer until this pact has been concluded?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir P. Harris: Would it not be. possible to send a Cabinet Minister with plenary powers to settle these discussions so that they can be brought to a successful issue?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Greenwood: May I press the Prime Minister on this subject? In view of the fact that the negotiations have been very prolonged in relation to a matter which is of profound interest to the future of the peace of Europe, surely the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give an undertaking that this House should not rise until the negotiations are concluded?

The Prime Minister: I cannot at this stage give that assurance.

Mr. Greenwood: Supposing the right hon. Gentleman were pressed a little later —I quite realise that there may be difficulties—would he think it a satisfactory situation if this House were to rise without an agreement being concluded and some arrangement were made behind the backs of this House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman shares the desire of the British Government that an agreement should be concluded, but the possibility of concluding an agreement does not lie only with His Majesty's Government.

BRITISH NEWS-FILMS (DISTRIBUTION ABROAD).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are being taken in the interests of British propaganda to encourage the wider distribution abroad of British news-films; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that this is to a large extent dependent on the adequate distribution of foreign and Dominion news-film in this country, he will take steps to secure the removal of the present restrictions under which British news-reel companies are compelled to restrict supplies of their films for exhibition in Great Britain to such places as are approved by the cinematograph theatre interests?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The second part does not come within the purview of my Noble Friend.

DANZIG.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present position in Danzig following the shooting of a Polish customs official?

Mr. Butler: The matters arising out of the death of a Polish customs official are being dealt with by the Polish Government and the Danzig Senate. Meanwhile I would take this opportunity to express my Noble Friend's regret at this unhappy incident.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that this question asks about the present position in Danzig, has the right hon.

Gentleman any reply to make to the statement of the German official spokesman on Friday last to the effect that the German Government expect the British Government to bring pressure to bear on the Polish Government to agree to the unconditional return of Danzig to the German Reich?

Mr. Butler: I have no further statement to make on Danzig, and nothing to add to the Prime Minister's recent statement on the subject.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will review applications he receives for a war ex-service man's pension or from the widows of ex-service men on a more generous basis and in a more sympathetic manner than in the past?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Although I have only recently assumed office as Minister of Pensions, I have already examined the facts in a large number of cases, and I am satisfied that no claim fails for want of fair and sympathetic handling by my Department, which is always ready to assist in the collection of evidence to support a claim.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of calling together the Standing Joint Committee or a committee of Members of this House to consider the question?

Sir W. Womersley: I am giving full consideration, and very sympathetic consideration, to every case that comes before my Ministry. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to discuss it with him in my room after questions.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that if there is any doubt at all, it goes against the applicant?

Sir W. Womersley: That is not so.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether consideration has been given to the findings of the investigation conducted into the position of ex-service men disabled or incapacitated through war service by the British Legion, and the report issued in 1938; and what action has been taken or is contemplated?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 18th April last by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that reply satisfactory?

Sir W. Womersley: I certainly do.

Mr. Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered a copy of a resolution from the Ramsgate branch of the British Legion, supported by many other branches, dealing with the need to improve the position of ex- service war-disabled men; and what action it is proposed to take?

Sir W. Womersley: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to. The proposals contained in it would involve radical departures from the scheme approved by Parliament for dealing with the effects of war injury. They must, therefore, of necessity, be most carefully considered by all Departments concerned before any action could be recommended to Parliament. I may add that my Department is in close touch with the British Legion.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications for pensions made by disabled soldiers and the widows of disabled soldiers during 1938, and the amount granted; and in how many cases application was made for an increase of pension, and the number of such increased pensions?

Sir W. Womersley: During the year ended 31st December, 1938, 2,331 applications for pension were received from disabled men and 1,824 from widows of ex-service men. The approximate annual value of the pensions which it was found possible to grant was £36,000. As regards the second paragraph of the question, the records of my Department do not enable me to give the number of applications for increase of pensions, but during the year in question pensions were increased in about 1,300 cases.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that in the case of ex-soldiers who have suffered from disease or wounds and whose earning capacity has been impaired as a result of their condition and their age, all those factors are being taken into account?

Sir W. Womersley: I am quite satisfied that those factors have been borne in mind, and I want also to inform my hon. Friend that I shall never be satisfied.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that this is a serious subject?

Sir W. Womersley: I realise that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SWEDEN.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can make a statement regarding the results likely to accrue from the visit of the Swedish trade delegation to this country?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir, the visit of the Swedish Trade Delegation was in my opinion very successful, an opinion which, I am glad to say, is shared equally by the Federation of British Industries, which undertook the responsibility of organising the discussions. The conversations were conducted in an atmosphere of cordiality and goodwill, and there was abundant evidence on the Swedish side of a willingness to lend every support to United Kingdom exporters trading with Sweden. Much valuable information has been obtained and many new contacts made, which are likely to bear fruit in the future. It is probable that as a direct outcome of the Swedish visit, a permanent body will be set up in Sweden for the purpose of consolidating the work of the delegation.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend see that there is a clause in any agreement that is come to providing for the use of British shipping?

EXPORT GUARANTEES ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how often the Export Guarantees Advisory Council meet; whether its members receive any remuneration for their services; and whether they are precluded from having any interest in contracts guaranteed under the system of export guarantees?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Full meetings of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council are


held monthly, but other meetings and consultations take place more frequently as and when circumstances require. Members of the council receive no remuneration for their services. As regards the last part of the question, it is the practice for members of the council to make full disclosure of any interest they might have in any particular transaction. On the rare occasions when they have any such interest they naturally abstain from the discussion. I may perhaps take this opportunity of repeating that the Government are greatly indebted to the members of the council for their admirable work.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, since the Bacon Industry (Amendment) Act, 1939, provides for a steadily increasing production of bacon in this country he can state the percentage increase there has been since the passing of that Act?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): My hon. Friend's premise is incorrect; the Bacon Industry (Amendment) Act, 1939, was concerned only with certain adjustments in the provisions of the Bacon Industry Act, 1938, relating to payments to or by curers on account of feeding-stuff costs and bacon prices, and to the production of bacon from imported pigs. In view of the shorter supply of pigs this year the output of bacon has not increased since the Amendment Act became law.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend tell me what is happening in the bacon industry? Why is the whole thing being held up? Why are we not making headway?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the reports that the Pig Marketing Board's annual meeting adjourned and that the scheme looks like being in grave danger of collapse? What does the Government propose to do?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question. The question I have answered dealt with the bacon industry.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Schemes, he will take steps to prevent the further closing down of the small curing establishments and factories, in view of their special value in times of emergency; and whether he will consult with the Food (Defence Plans) Department with the object of effecting this purpose?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The only grounds which exist at present under which a factory licence granted under the Bacon Industry Act, 1938, can be revoked, are that the conditions of the licence have been contravened or that the premises have ceased to be used for the production of bacon. I understand that a few licences have formally been revoked because the premises are no longer being used for bacon production, but no other licences have been revoked. My hon. Friend's question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that bacon curers in all parts of the country are unable to meet their requirements and will he take steps to see that they get better supplies?

LAND DRAINAGE PUMPING STATIONS (ELECTRICITY).

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to reconsider the present basis on which grants are made to land drainage pumping stations so that encouragement may be given to electrical installations which, in turn, would tend to promote electricity supply facilities for remote rural areas?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. I do not think it would be wise or practicable to prescribe any particular form of power for land drainage pumping stations, but I will approve whatever proposals may be most appropriate in the particular circumstances of each case.

Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take into account the information which I have received from the Yorkshire Power Company that on account of high tension wires being connected to a sewerage scheme in Nottinghamshire they were able, incidentally, to connect up 10 villages and in that way bring supplies of electricity to very remote rural areas?

Sir R, Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir. There is an arrangement under which the Ministry does let the Electricity Commission know of any schemes which are coming forward in order that the local supply company may be in a position to make an offer to the pumping station to supply the power.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister take that into account in allocating grant? That is the important point.

GRASSLAND (PLOUGHING-UP GRANTS, WORCESTERSHIRE).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total acreage of pasture- land in Worcestershire which has been passed as qualified for the £2 per acre grant for replanting to date?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Up to the present date, notifications of intention to plough-up grassland in Worcestershire have been received in respect of approximately 1,953 acres. I would remind my hon. Friend that notification of intention to plough does not of itself render the land eligible for the proposed Government grant, which is dependent upon the fulfilment of certain conditions.

POTATOES.

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, before empowering the Potato Marketing Board to buy and hold off the market for in definite periods an unlimited quantity of potatoes in addition to regulating what potatoes may be marketed at any time, he can state what steps he proposes to take to impose a reasonable maximum price to which the Board can thus force up the price of potatoes in order to provide reasonable protection for the consumer?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The object of the particular amendment of the Potato Marketing Scheme, which my hon. Friend evidently has in mind, is to clear up a certain ambiguity in regard to the Board's power to buy and sell surplus potatoes, which they already exercise under the Scheme. I see no reason, therefore, for taking any action such as is suggested, particularly in view of the natural safeguards against excessive prices which consumers already possess and of those provided under the Agricultural Marketing Acts.

Mr. J. Morgan: These powers do not include any fresh attempt to restrict supplies either to the consumer or from the producer?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large quantity of last year's crop of potatoes has been left in the hands of the farmers and they have been unable to sell even at 15s. a ton, and does he not agree that those potatoes could have found a market among men who are unemployed or on low wages?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I shall be very glad to have any information from the hon. Member about those large stocks.

WHEAT (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture in view of the all-time low record price of wheat, whether he can arrange for an immediate further interim payment in respect of deficiency payments to be made to registered wheat- growers who have sold their wheat?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. The Wheat Commission have already during this cereal year made five advances to registered growers at the rate of 4s. per cwt., the last advance having been made as recently as 13th July in respect of sales of wheat credited to 30th June. Deficiency payments on the very small quantity of wheat sold since that date, together with final payments on the advances already made will be made early in September.

Mr. De Chair: Will any further advance payments be made between now and September? Does not a situation in farming which is unprecedented in 300 years require unprecedented remedies?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would remind my hon. Friend that the deficiency payments have to be calculated in relation to the difference between the standard price of 10s. per quarter and the average price obtained by the registered growers for home-grown millable wheat sold by them during the cereal year ending on 31st July.

ARABLE ACREAGE AND WORKERS.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture how the arable acreage of


Great Britain on 4th June this year compares with that of a year ago; and whether he will state the number of agricultural workers in Great Britain to-day compared with a year ago?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Particulars of the arable acreage and of agricultural workers in Great Britain on 4th June last will not be available until August, and I regret that I am, therefore, unable at present to make the desired comparisons between this year and last year.

DRAINAGE, GREAT OUSE AREA.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with drainage and flood-prevention schemes in the Great Ouse Catchment area; and whether he is satisfied that all necessary steps are now being taken to make the Fens safe from the risk of serious flooding?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As was stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend on 6th February last, schemes of the River Great Ouse Catchment Board estimated to cost about £2,000,000 have been approved in principal for a Government grant of 75 per cent. Sections of these schemes are in progress or have been completed. As regards the last part of the question, the Catchment Board have appointed a consulting engineer to report as to the principles to be applied to provide an efficient and economic remedy for the drainage problems in the area, and I understand his report will shortly be available.

Mr. J. Morgan: Then the Minister is not satisfied that the Fens are safe from serious flooding at the moment?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have not said that.

Mr. Morgan: You have not said otherwise.

ATTESTED HERDS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many attested herds there were in Scotland at the last available date; how many of these include cows of the Ayrshire breed; how many such cows are so included; and what counties in Scotland do not have attested herds with Ayrshire cows?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: At the end of June, 1939, there were 1,798 attested herds in Scotland, comprising approxi-

mately 110,200 cattle. At the time of entry in the Register of Attested Herds, 1,344 of these herds comprising 91,300 animals were wholly, and a further 128 herds comprising 9,100 animals were mainly, composed of cattle of the Ayrshire breed. Information as to the number of Ayrshire cows in attested herds in Scotland is not available. No attested herds wholly or mainly composed of Ayrshire cattle are located in the counties of Banff, Nairn, Orkney, Sutherland and Zetland.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

NEAR-WATER TRAWLERS.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give details of the proposal to lay up 400 near-water trawlers; how many fishermen are likely to lose their employment if this proposal is carried out; and whether he is taking any steps to ensure that these men shall not be lost to the industry?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor) on 18th July, I have no information regarding the present position of this proposal. While I am unable to give more than a rough estimate, the number of fishermen who might be involved if the full scheme were put into operation is probably between 4,500 and 5,000. With regard to the last part of the question, if the industry wishes to proceed with the proposal I have no power to prevent it.

Mr. Adamson: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department been consulted in any way?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.

Viscountess Astor: Is it beyond the power of the Government to do something to save these little fishermen, who are absolutely essential to the country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is realised; but as to this particular proposal I have not heard of it officially, nor have I any power in the matter.

LANDING RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. Goldie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the restrictions on the landing of fish in this country have resulted in a large increase in the cost of fish as an article of human


consumption; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture how he intends to meet increasing complaints from fish-friers and other such consumers of fish about a shortage of supplies, believed to be due to the restrictions on fish landings and not to the quantity of fish available?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Agriculture what restrictions there are on fish landings; and what effect they have had on the price of fish?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Landings of fish in this country may be said to be restricted by the Sea-Fishing Industry (Restriction of Fishing in Northern Waters) Order, and by the voluntary scheme of control operated by the Hull and Grimsby trawler owners. The restrictions under the Northern Waters Order expire at the end of this month: the voluntary control scheme is worked by the industry itself on its own account and I have no power to intervene. I regret that I have no statistical information relating to retail prices of fish. Port prices of demersal fish in the first six months of 1938 and 1939 were somewhat higher than in the corresponding periods of 1936 and 1937 when prices were exceptionally low, but they were about the same level as in 1934 and 1935; 1937 was, in fact, a record year for high landings and low prices. I would add that landings of demersal fish have increased by more than one half since 1913; at the same time port prices in 1938 were no higher than before the War and were the cause of grave difficulties for the trawling industry.

Mr. Goldie: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not realise that fish constitutes the staple evening diet of the working class; and in view of the way in which fish prices are rising, can he not take action in the interests of the consumers?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend will realise that the prices obtained for fish have a very great bearing on the number of people who can be employed in the industry, and that it is important to see that the fishermen also get a square deal.

Mr. T. Wiliams: Is there not a committee in existence to watch fluctuations in prices, and can it not look into this matter?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister have more regard, in future legislation, to the interests of the consumers, who have suffered very badly?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We must first be sure that there are supplies of fish.

Mr. J. Morgan: Can some inquiry be made as to the soundness of the feelings of the fish fryers in this matter? They were subject last season to the one lb. potato restriction, and the whole business is getting knocked sideways by this type of legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is there any reason why the interests of the fishermen should not be considered?

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious effect produced on the popular supply of fish and chips by, on the one hand, restrictions on fish landing and, on the other hand, by the draft amendments to the Potato Marketing Scheme; and whether, to allay anxiety and to protect the consumer, he will postpone laying the latter before Parliament until the autumn?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: With regard to the draft amendments to the Potato Marketing Scheme I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I am giving to-day to my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Sir J. Smedley Crooke), and as regards fish landings, to my reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) and the hon. Members for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) and Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson).

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister not aware that thousands of families in this country have fish and chips for their dinner and supper, and will he not see that they have as large a supply as possible?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have no reason to believe that they have not enough fish.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that we are getting petitions from people on this matter, and will he give the matter reconsideration?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

EMPIRE AIR MAIL.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Postmaster-General particulars


of the increase in the weight of mails despatched by air to the countries served by the Empire air routes since the introduction of the Empire Air Mail Scheme?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): Prior to the introduction of the Empire Air Mail Scheme on the route to East and South Africa on 29th June, 1937, surcharged air mail was being despatched by the Empire air routes at the rate of 160 tons per annum. With the successive extensions of the scheme, and the abolition of the surcharge system for the participating countries, the weight of letter mail despatched by air from this country by the Empire air routes has increased from 506 tons in the year ended 30th June, 1938, to 1,011 tons in the year ended 30th June, 1939.

MAILS TO EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

Sir M. Sueter: asked the Postmaster-General particulars of the weight of mails despatched by air to European destinations during the last three years?

Major Tryon: Following the adoption in 1936 of the principle of forwarding by air or surface transport, whichever offers the quicker delivery, letters and postcards for European countries prepaid at the ordinary rates of postage, the weight of the letter mails despatched by air to European destinations rose from 225 tons in the year ended the 30th June, 1937, to 571 tons in the year ended the 30th June, 1938; and 855 tons in the year ended 30th June, 1939.

FOREIGN AIR LINES (BRITISH PAYMENTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the approximate sum paid to foreign air lines for the 12 months ended the last convenient date, giving, separately, the amount paid for the carriage of British mail to South America, to either French or German postal administrations, and for the carriage of British air mail to this country?

Major Tryon: The amount paid for the conveyance of British mails by foreign air lines during the year ended 31st March, 1939, was £183,500. Of this sum, £62,000 was paid to the French Post Office and £51,000 to the German Post Office for the conveyance of British mail to South America. As regards the last part of the question, payment for the

carriage of air mail originating abroad and addressed to this country is made by the postal administration of the country of origin.

Mr. Day: Is it intended that in future all first-class mail shall be carried in British planes?

Major Tryon: We shall extend the quantity of British mail carried in British aeroplanes as opportunity offers.

TELEGRAPH MESSENGER STAFF, GOSPORT.

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of complaints have been made in respect of delay in the delivery of telegrams from the Gosport office; and whether he is satisfied that the number of messengers is adequate, in view of the office being so far removed from the large housing estates?

Major Tryon: The number of telegrams delivered from the Gosport Post Office during the past six months was nearly 14,000, and during that period only two-complaints were received of delay in delivery. Judged by the usual standards, the messenger staff at the office is fully adequate for the delivery work to be performed.

NIGHT TRUNK CALLS.

Mr. Magnay: asked the Postmaster-General whether the increase in the number of night trunk calls, since the introduction of the Is. call, is being maintained; and whether the service given is. considered to be satisfactory?

Major Tryon: Prior to 1934, when the Is. trunk calls at night were introduced, the number of trunk calls made in the evening period amounted to some 2,300,000 a year. The cheap rate has proved to be so popular that in 1938 the number of trunk calls in the evening period amounted to no less than 13,500,000. The present rate of increase is about 8 per cent. a year. This rapid increase in traffic has introduced a number of difficult problems in regard to both staff and equipment, but these have now been largely overcome. The standard of service is generally satisfactory, but occasions arise when it is impossible to avoid delay in connecting calls on individual routes where there is a sudden and heavy concentration of traffic.

Mr. J. Morgan: Would the Postmaster-General now consider having a reduced rate for the afternoon in order to improve the afternoon service?

STAMP BOOKLETS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Postmaster-General how many stamp booklets have been issued, or prepared for issue, containing an advertisement of a proprietary medicine which promises immediate results to sufferers from rheumatism, backache, painful joints, and affections of the kidney, bladder, and prostate gland; on what date the existing contract for this advertisement will terminate; and whether his Department has sought any expert advice as to whether or not it is in conformity with the restrictions proposed by the Select Committee of 1912?

Major Tryon: The answer to the first point is 10,500,000; to the second, that there is no standing contract; and to the third, in the negative. Advertisements which specifically purport to cure any of the diseases mentioned in paragraph 58 (2) of the Select Committee's report are rejected. As the Assistant Postmaster-General stated in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) on 28th June, I am looking further into the policy of the Post Office in this matter.

Sir A. Wilson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend canvass the Government Departments and the marketing boards with a view to pointing out to them the great opportunities that are offered to them by the space in these booklets?

Major Tryon: The answer is that the -whole matter is being considered.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the Postmaster-General consult the Minister of Health on the nature of these advertisements?

Viscountess Aston: If it is not permissible to advertise a cure for cancer, why is it permissible to advertise a cure for all these complaints?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

WIRELESS EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being

taken to use the services of amateur radio operators in the event of war; and is he aware that, with little expenditure, a 24-hour service could be maintained even in the event of a breakdown of the grid electricity system?

Major Tryon: It has been decided, after consultation with the Government Departments concerned, that it would be essential in time of war to close down the wireless transmitting sets used by experimenters. I understand that steps have been taken by the Admiralty and the Air Ministry to enroll a number of suitable wireless experimenters for special wireless duties in time of emergency.

Mr. Bartlett: Would the Minister not agree that a considerable number of these amateur operators have very good War records and could maintain communications at a time when all the wires in the country were broken down; that they could still maintain communications on behalf of the Government and would it not be rather a pity that they should all be closed down? Could I submit evidence to the Minister of the actual position?

Major Tryon: The value of these operators is fully realised, and they have been given an opportunity to join the Royal Air Force Civilian Wireless Reserve or the Royal Naval Wireless Reserve, in order that their skill might be made use of.

EVACUATION, KENT.

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Health the anticipated number, by districts, of evacuees who will require to be transported from the different evacuated districts of Kent, in case of an emergency?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horabrugh): The plans now in operation are based on the assumption that it will be necessary to provide transport for the following numbers in the priority classes from the towns in Kent covered by the present railway time-tables:


Chatham Borough
11,800


Gillingham Borough
17,700


Rochester Borough
9,800


Plans for the further towns which it is now proposed to add to the evacuable category are now being worked out, but full details are not yet available.

ROAD VEHICLES' HEADLIGHTS (MASKING).

Sir Cooper Rawson: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1)whether his attention has been drawn to a device for masking lights on vehicles during air raids which has been designed by a resident at Brighton; whether he is aware that at a demonstration given at Shoreham Aerodrome on 20th May four vehicles equipped with this device were able to drive comfortably at over 15 miles an hour, while at the same time competent observers, including personages from the police and local air-raid precautions services and retired Royal Air Force officers, were unable to detect the transport or its lights from an aeroplane; and, in view of this evidence, why this device has not been approved by his Department;
(2) whether the Air-Raid Precautions Department have in view the production of a device of their own for masking the lights of motor cars during air raids; and whether he can give any indication of the cost of this device to local authorities;
(3) whether he is aware that lack of guidance on the method of masking lights on essential vehicles during air raids is causing concern to local authorities and is handicapping the technical and inventive talent of the country in aiding national defence, and when recommendations will be issued; and whether it is intended to approve one or more methods for masking lights?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): The device to which my hon. Friend refers was brought to the notice of my Department in March, 1938. It was examined by the Department's expert advisers, who came to the conclusion that it was unsuitable for general adoption. The device was examined again in the light of reports on the tests carried out in May last, but my advisers found no grounds for modifying the conclusion which they had previously reached. The Department has for some time been carrying out investigations to determine the most suitable type of mask for headlights, and I hope to be in a position to issue a memorandum on the subject at an early date, for the guidance of motorists. It is intended that the memorandum shall prescribe the conditions of light distribution and intensity, and shall also give particulars of the masking device which is recommended as complying with those conditions, but any

other headlamp device which produces the same effect will be permitted. I am not at present in a position to give details of the cost of the recommended device.

Sir C. Rawson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department merely gave a bald statement that the filter either gave too little light for driving comfortably or gave so much light as to be visible from the air; and is he aware that that is in conflict with the reports given by the chief constables of East Sussex, Brighton, Hove, and other towns and districts in the country who have tested this apparatus from the air?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Sir C. Rawson: On a point of Order. I do not often waste the time of this House. I am getting one answer to three questions, and a very bad one at that.

Sir J. Anderson: The problem of combining minimum visibility from the air with adequate lighting for traffic purposes and an absence of dazzle under black-out conditions is a very difficult one, and many competing suggestions and claims have had to be thoroughly investigated. I hope we have at last reached finality, and, as I have indicated, it is proposed to convey the conclusions reached to the public at once.

Sir C. Rawson: Will my right hon. Friend submit this and other devices to a scientific committee, for the purpose of ascertaining what is the best procurable; and will he answer my Question No. 63, as to the cost of the instrument he has in mind?

Sir J. Anderson: I have said that I cannot give a final figure at the moment.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole thing very unsatisfactory?

WIRELESS RECEPTION(INTERFERENCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General what action his Department are taking in order to see that owners of electrical plant which causes interference with the reception of broadcast programmes by receiving stations nearby instal some form of suppression apparatus, so obviating this interference and annoyance; and does he propose seeking any further statutory powers on the subject?

Major Tryon: Where complaint is made of electrical interference with wireless reception, my Department approaches the owners of the electrical plant concerned and advises them as to the best method of suppressing the interference. In the large majority of cases the owners agree to fit suppression devices, although there is no legal power to compel them to do so. Inquiries regarding the possible scope and operation of a new Wireless Telegraphy Bill to deal, inter alia, with the question of electrical interference with wireless reception, are being actively pursued. The problem is, however, one of great complexity, involving consultation with many interests which would be affected; and some time must elapse before these consultations can be completed.

Mr. Day: Has any action been taken upon the report of the committee appointed by the Institute of Electrical Engineers on this subject?

Major Tryon: That matter is being considered, but we are not yet in a position to introduce legislation because we want to get as large a measure of general agreement as possible.

ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE(PROFITS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Edgware, No. 34, branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in connection with excessive profits made in the supply of armaments, and especially aircraft, sent to him; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): My attention has not hitherto been drawn to the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. If he will be so good as to send me a copy, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Gallacher: While expressing my regret that the Minister has not received the resolution—I understood that it had been sent to him—might I ask him to consider the question of taking the shop stewards into consultation on the matter of controlling armament prices and profits, as set out in the resolution?

Mr. Burgin: It seems rather a different matter. If the hon. Member will send me the resolution first I will deal with one thing at a time.

WIRELESS RECEIVING LICENCES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Postmaster-General what increase has taken place in the number of wireless receiving licences in Scotland during the last 12 months; and what are the figures for each of the counties, cities and large burghs at the latest available date and for the corresponding date a year ago, respectively?

Major Tryon: The total number of wireless receiving licences in force in Scotland on 31st May, 1939, was 772,170, which is 34,813 more than the number on 31st May, 1938. I am unable to give detailed figures in the precise form asked for by the hon. and learned Member. I will, however, send him a statement which, I hope, will answer the purpose in view.

OLD WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL SITE (BUILDING PROPOSALS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the First Commissioner of Works how the height of the proposed block of offices on the site of the old Westminster hospital, overlooking the Abbey, compares with that of the hospital; whether he is aware of the public anxiety that any new building in immediate proximity to the Abbey should be of moderate height; and whether he will submit to the Royal Fine Art Commission for their opinion models of the proposed building and of the Abbey?

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): The greatest height of the existing hospital building is about 80 feet. The greatest height of the new building will be not more than 88 feet. This, however, will be the height of the top of the roof: the height of the main wall head, the storeys above which will be set back, will be about 67 feet only, as against about 75 feet for the present building. The design is still in process of development, and these details must be regarded as approximate only: but I am in close touch with the promoters of the scheme, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully alive to the considerations which he mentions. The Royal Fine Art Commission have had the opportunity of examining a model of the proposed building in relation to its surroundings, including Westminster Abbey.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Health what number of parishes have been supplied with a piped water supply through the grants offered in 1934; and whether such grant in aid has now all been allocated?

Miss Horsbrugh: The number of parishes referred to is 1,855. The grant has now all been allocated.

Mr. Morgan: Is there any prospect of a further allocation of grants being made; or are instructions sent out that no further schemes are to be. proceeded with by rural district councils, as I understand is the case?

Miss Horsbrugh: All the grants have been allocated, and further legislation would be needed before there could be any further grant.

Mr. Morgan: Is there any discouragement from the Ministry?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES. (EXPENDITURE).

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the amount raised in rates in England and Wales has risen from £146,294,000 in 1933. to £189,000,000 in 1939, or nearly 30 per cent. in six years, he will state what steps he is taking to abate the heavy burden now falling on the occupants of houses and others?

Miss Horsbrugh: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 12th July.

Mr. Thorne: Will the Parliamentary Secretary convey to the Minister of Health the fact that in some cases so many old age pensioners are on Poor taw relief that it is costing them Is. or more in the £

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (INSULIN).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health how many dependents of State- insured persons who suffer from diabetes have received insulin free through the public assistance committees; and what

was the value of the same during the past year or the latest date?

Miss Horsbrugh: The supply of insulin under Poor Law powers does not require the approval of my right hon. Friend, and I am afraid that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available in my Department.

Mr. Griffiths: Is there any chance in the near future that all dependants of insured persons will get this insulin free, without all the difficulties which stand in the way in connection with the public assistance committees, which are almost insurmountable?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that that is another question, and perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Mr. Griffiths: I have put it down six times in the last two years.

SERVICE DEPARTMENTS (LAND ACQUISITION).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, following upon his undertaking as to the appropriation of agricultural land for defence purposes, conferences have been held between the War, Air and Agricultural Departments, and with what result?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Arrangements exist whereby the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is consulted by the Service Departments in regard to the proposed appropriation of land for service purposes. The selection of suitable sites depends upon the fulfilment of technical and strategical requirements, and the final responsibility for the acquisition of land must, therefore, rest with the Defence Departments. The whole question is being kept under constant review by my colleagues in charge of the Departments concerned.

Sir P. Hurd: Has there been a conference such as was indicated by the Prime Minister when he gave the undertaking?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, there have been several consultations between the Departments concerned.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS" (SALVAGE).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the difficulties, doubts, and probable expense involved in raising the "Thetis," he will consider leaving her where she is to remain a memorial to the dead, with a permanent buoy to mark the spot?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Austin Hudson): As long as there is a reasonable possibility of salving His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis," I think it will be generally agreed that operations should continue so that the fullest information may be available as to the cause of the accident.

Mr. Logan: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that on Merseyside it is considered most desirable that this ship should be raised if possible?

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the publicity given to this question and the suggestion in it have given very great pain to the relatives of the men who were lost, and that it is increasing the suspicion that there is something to hide?

Captain Hudson: There is nothing to hide.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the statement of the managing director of Cammell Laird that he hopes that the vessel will not be salved; and, in view of the statement by the Prime Minister that he hopes and expects that. it will be salved, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not deprecate the statement of the managing director of Cammell Laird and the suggestion in this question?

Captain Hudson: I have not seen the statement.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say what the cost will be?

Captain Hudson: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question down.

BRITISH ARMY (OFFICER'S PAY).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the comments, made on

Tuesday last, by the judge of the Kingston County Court in the case of an officer of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, at Didcot, who has been there since June and has not received any pay; and what action he intends to take to remedy this matter?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I have made inquiry into the case to which the hon. Member refers. Pay is normally issuable monthly in arrear, and authority for issue is given at the time of appointment. I find that, in certain cases recently, owing to urgency, gentlemen who were willing have been allowed to do duty with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in advance of formal appointment, and before the terms and conditions of employment have been finally settled. In the particular case, certain inquiries had to be made and the formal authority was not given until 19th July. I have given instructions which, I hope, will secure that in any future case of this kind, pay will be issued at a provisional rate on the due date, if the final rate has not been determined.

PUBLIC EVENTS (NEWS-REELS).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the present time permits are only granted by his Department and the police authorities to a limited number of news-reel companies to take films of important public events; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the resultant films are available for exhibition to all interests which are prepared to pay the usual price and that there is no restriction, as now, on the distribution of the films for exhibition in places not approved by the principal cinematograph interests in this country?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Neither the Home Office nor Scotland Yard have any authority to issue permits for the taking of films. My hon. Friend probably has in mind the cards, similar to those given to the Press, which the Commissioner of Police gives to the representatives of news-reel companies. These cards, which are merely a means of identification to enable the police to give such assistance as is proper, are, I understand, issued to all the main companies.


In reply to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere in the distribution of films, which is entirely a matter for the proprietors.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Committee of Inquiry into War Risks Insurance for Property is to begin its investigations, and what are the terms of reference upon which the inquiry is to be held?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The arrangements for constituting the conference are being completed, but I am not yet in a position to say when it will begin its investigations. As regards the scope of the conference I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade during the Debate on the War Risks Insurance Bill on 17th July.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS(MESSENGERS).

Captain Plugee: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of messengers in the Government service who are actually in receipt of a pension from any former employment and the number of ex-service men who are similarly employed?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that the information is not available.

HERR WOHLTAT'S VISIT(CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. Greenwood: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the alleged proposal for a German loan?

The Prime Minister: There is no proposal for a German loan. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to reports that have been in circulation during the last few days, arising out of a conversation between my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade and Herr Wohltat, Economic Adviser to Field Marshal Goering, the Minister in charge of the German Four-Year Plan. Herr Wohltat was on a visit to this country as the Ger-

man representative on the Whaling Conference; it is also part of his responsibilities to discuss matters arising out of the refugees question. So far as I am aware, Herr Wohltat's mission did not extend beyond these matters. In the course of other visits in recent years to this country, Herr Wohltat has met a number of officials and others who are concerned with trade and economic questions affecting the two countries, consideration of these matters forming part of Herr Wohltat's normal duties. It was, accordingly, in no sense unusual that my right hon. Friend and Herr Wohltat should meet and should discuss subjects in which they are mutually interested, and for which they are respectively responsible in their official capacities.
My right hon. Friend has reported to me that the conversation turned to the steps that might be taken to produce an improvement in the foreign trade of the principal manufacturing countries. In this connection, my right hon. Friend, pointing out that a solution of the political question was a necessary preliminary (by which, of course, he meant a restoration of international confidence) discussed what might be done to remove existing barriers to the development of international trade, including barter agreements, exchange restrictions, import quotas and so forth. Discussion of economic questions of this character led on to discussion of the financial steps that might have to be taken to overcome the initial difficulties, and my right hon. Friend (who throughout emphasised that he was only expressing a personal view, and having in mind the stipulation that restoration of international confidence is a necessary preliminary) said he thought that assuming that international confidence had been restored, there should be scope for co-operation on this matter on the part of the principal countries concerned.
It will be seen from this account that there is no justification whatever for stating or for assuming that these remarks, arising in the course of an unofficial conversation, constitute a proposal for a loan by this country to Germany.

Mr. Greenwood: May I take it from what the Prime Minister has said that the Cabinet have no knowledge whatever of the possibility of discussions of this kind and did not prompt them in any way.


and, also, that there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government now to begin discussions which might look like bribery to Herr Hitler, in order to buy peace?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give an affirmative answer to both those questions. The Cabinet knew nothing about these conversations, nor did any other Minister but the Minister concerned. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to initiate any discussions of the kind suggested.

Sir P. Harris: Who was responsible for disclosing the text of these conversations?

The Prime Minister: That is a question to which I should very much like to know the answer myself.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister regard it as desirable that a member of the Government, although not in the Cabinet, should engage in conversations of this kind, important as they are, at this crucial time—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"]—without some preliminary guidance from the Government themselves; and, further, can he say quite categorically that no highly placed official of the Government has had conversations of this kind with Herr Wohltat?

The Prime Minister: I do not see any particular harm in this particular conversation, which was a personal conversation between my right hon. Friend and an official on the German side. The mischief—if mischief there was—was in the disclosure of what took place in the newspapers. With regard to the second part of the question, this is, I suppose, a repetition of the usual attacks on Sir Horace Wilson. Sir Horace Wilson, as Chief Industrial Adviser to the Government, has frequently seen Herr Wohltat when he has been over here on a visit. He saw him again on his recent visit, and did not discuss with him any of the matters to which I have alluded in my description of the conversation with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shinwell: May I follow that by asking whether—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. May I direct your attention, Sir, to the fact that it was not I who mentioned the name of Sir Horace Wilson, but the right hon. Gentleman, and may I, therefore, put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman in order to elucidate this point?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, who gave a very definite answer.

Mr. Shinwell: It was the right hon. Gentleman who made reference to Sir Horace Wilson, and can he say quite categorically that no official of the Board of Trade conducted conversations with Herr Wohltat, and that the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department was not aware of the opinion of officials of the Board of Trade in connection with this matter?

The Prime Ministers: I know nothing about any conversations between any official of the Board of Trade. It is no use cross-examining me without notice about other conversations that may have taken place with Herr Wohltat while he was over here. I have said what I can about Sir Horace Wilson, but I cannot say anything about the Board of Trade.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I, for the convenience of the House, ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to proceed to-night in the event of the suspension of the 11 o'Clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: We desire to obtain the Second Reading of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and the Committee stage of the War Risks Insurance Bill. We hope, also, that there will be time for the consideration of the Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 112.

Division No. 268.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ellis, Sir G.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Albert, Sir Irvine
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Fildes, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fleming, E. L.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Apsley, Lord
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Furness, S. N.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Goldie, N. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Patrick, C. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Granville, E. L.
Peake, O.


Balniel, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pilkington, R.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hambro, A. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bernays, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Purbrick, R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Blair, Sir R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rankin, Sir R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brabner, R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bracken, B.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Remer, J. R


Brass, Sir W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hunloke, H. P.
Salt, E. W.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Jarvis, Sir J. J
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kellett, Major E, O.
Selley, H. R.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Simmonds, O. E.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univ's.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smithers, Sir W


Channon, H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Somerset, T.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd. A. T. L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Levy, T.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Little, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Locker-Lampion, Comdr. 0. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
M'Connell, Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
McCorquodale, M. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cross, R. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J
Touche, G. C.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


De Chair, S. S.
Magnay, T
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


De la Bère, R.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Turton, R. H.


Denville, Alfred
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Doland, G. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Donner, P. W.
Markham, S. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Marsden, Commander A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dower, C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Warrender, Sir V.


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Dunean, J, A. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dunglass, Lord
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)







Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:— 


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
York, C.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Young, A. S. L, (Partick)
Munro,




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Ritson, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, Agnes
Shinwell, E.


Batty, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Silverman, S. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hayday, A.
Simpson, F. B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A, (Pontefract)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K ly)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Jagger, J.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S
Kirby, B. V.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Masser, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Wilmot, John


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot, D. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallagher, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Paling, W.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Parker, J.
 TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

Amendments to—

West Surrey Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, in respect of the Solicitors Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 164.]

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am sorry to have to ask the House of Commons for the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind at so late a date in the Session. I hope, however, that I shall be able to show that there is no other course open to the Government, that we urgently need these powers and that we must have them before the House adjourns. The House will want answers to these three questions: Why is it that we want these powers now; why is it that we want these particular powers; arid can we be assured that these powers are not excessive for the purpose and will not indirectly undermine some of the most cherished liberties of our fellow subjects? Let me deal with each of these questions in turn. Let me begin by reminding the House in a few sentences of the history of these terrorist attempts. The first move was in January of this year, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received what purported to be an ultimatum from the so-called Irish Republican Army demanding an instant withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, giving a limit of four days for their departure, and threatening this country with reprisals if the ultimatum was not accepted. Shortly afterwards the terrorist attempts began. Let me say, in passing, and this is my only reference to the bigger political issues that are involved in these questions, that I can imagine no worse way of influencing public opinion either in this country or in Northern Ireland than these terrorist attempts. They inevitably make the rift deeper and deeper between Northern and Southern Ireland. Nothing is less likely to bring about the reconciliation without which a united Ireland is impossible.
Shortly after this ultimatum there began these terrorist attempts, and amongst the documents that were discovered by the police in their searches was a very interesting document known as the

"S" Plan, the plan under which these terrorist attempts were to be organised and the policy that lay behind these attempts. I have here a photograph of this plan in my hand, and I shall be perfectly ready to show it to any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who wishes to see it. It is a very remarkable document. It is not the kind of irresponsible, melodramatic document that one sometimes discovers in these searches. It is a very carefully worked out staff plan, the kind of plan that might be worked out by a General Staff, setting oat in detail the way in which an extensive campaign of sabotage could be successfully carried out against this country. The document runs into many thousands of words and deals with practically every aspect of the matter. Here is a sentence that I take from Part III of the plan:
It must be shown that this is the time to strike, that England has never been in so critical a condition, barred as she is by political tradition from adopting the only measures that would ensure her strength, namely, totalitarian methods.
I go on and find a diagram setting out in detail the various methods of sabotage. I pass on and I find a chapter dealing with the methods of direct action. I give a quotation or two from this chapter:
This may concern itself with military, air, or naval opposition or movements, should these arms be called actively into service in suppressing our sabotage and other." activities. Our weakness would reduce this form of action to a minimum.
The second legitimate but probably very inaccessible aim could be the destruction or sabotaging of aeroplane factories and stores, munition factories and stores, etc. These would probably be so well guarded that success would be chancy.
The third target, and this will probably be the most important, because the most effective, the most unequivocal and the most justifiable, is the Public Services.
It goes on to deal with a number of other categories, and the chapter ends with this paragraph:
The last group to be considered might prove to be an important one, especially if adopted as punitive action for incitement to repressive violence against our campaign or merely for the spreading of injurious propaganda about the revolutionaries and Ireland generally. This is the large-circulation English Press.
I pass on to several more pages and I come to a series of paragraphs dealing with the essential services of the country. There is a paragraph dealing with


water, not indeed giving any instruction for the pollution of water supplies, but giving instruction for damage to water supplies. There is a paragraph about drainage, giving instructions as to how a drainage system can be effectively interfered with; a paragraph about fire brigades, pointing to the advantages of destroying supplies of hose. Then perhaps the most remarkable of any of the paragraphs in the document, is a very long paragraph dealing with electricity supply, giving a number of details about key points, about the system of the grid and so on, pointing to a number of ways in which these essential services to the community might be brought to a standstill. Then a paragraph about attempts within Government offices, and an interesting passage inciting the terrorists to steal official notepaper. Lastly, a long paragraph dealing with the transport system, and dealing also with key industries in some detail, pointing, for instance, to the importance of magneto factories and so on. I hope I have said enough to show into what detail this document went, and on what accurate information, on the whole, it is based. The sinister fact about it is that the numerous attempts that have been made since last January have one and all, as far as I can gather, been based on this or that instruction given in the document from which I have just quoted.

Mr. Pritt: Would it embarrass the right hon. Gentleman to give the approximate date of the seizure of the document?

Sir S. Hoare: About the beginning of the year. The hon. and learned Member will see the importance of it, as since then there has been a whole series of outrages and attempted outrages, and every one of them, so it seems to me, took its inspiration from this plan of campaign.
Since January there have been no fewer than 127 terrorist outrages, 57 in London and 70 in the provinces. It is true that so far there has been a very limited loss of life. Indeed, in the document from which I have quoted, and other documents that have come into our hands, it is clear that in the early chapters of the campaign the attempt was intended against property and not against human life. Nevertheless, during the period of these outrages one man was killed in Manchester, one man lost his eye in Picca-

dilly the other day, and 55 persons have been seriously or less seriously injured. These outrages were within an inch of inflicting very serious damage upon the community. There was an attempt on Hammersmith Bridge. Had it not been for the gallantry of Mr. Childs who, I am glad to think, has subsequently been rewarded for his bravery, Hammersmith Bridge would have been destroyed. If it had not been for the prompt action of an inspector and a police constable in the outrages that took place in Tottenham Court Road and in South-West London, not only would very grave damage have been done to property, but there would have been loss of human life as well.
Let me remind the House of what took place in Piccadilly on the evening of the 24th June last. At 9.30—I draw the attention of hon. Members to the time; a moment when the streets of this part of London are thickly crowded—a bomb, containing 11 sticks of gelignite, was found in the cubicle of a lavatory in Oxford Circus. The attendant placed the bomb in a bucket of water and called the police. This prompt action saved an explosion. At 9.57 the same evening a bomb exploded on the footway opposite Number 2, Glasshouse Street, when four persons were injured and taken to hospital. One has since lost his eye and of the others one had one of his eyes injured, another had a wound on his wrist and the third had abrasions over both eyes. Extensive damage was also done to property. On the same evening a police officer found on the kerb opposite Number 2, Glasshouse Street, a bomb containing 10 sticks of gelignite, with detonator and fuse attached. He removed the stick containing the detonator and dismantled the bomb. At 11.15 the same evening a bomb exploded at Lloyd's Bank, 39, Piccadilly, just at the time when people were coming out of the theatres. The stonework was seriously damaged, and it was only by a miracle that there was not extensive loss of human life. The same evening another bomb exploded at the Midland Bank in Park Lane and blew the massive door of the bank right over Park Lane into Hyde Park.
These outrages show us the miracle that has taken place in avoiding the loss of human lives. It was not due to the terrorists but it was due to the interposition of Providence that loss of life was avoided. It was due also, as I said just


now, to the courageous action of members of the Metropolitan Police. Let me say this of the police, not only in London but in the great cities of the provinces, where outrages have also taken place, they could not have behaved more efficiently or more courageously. Look at their record. In this space of time they have brought a large number of these terrorists to trial. No fewer than 66 have been convicted by the ordinary processes of law. In addition, they have seized 1,500 sticks of gelignite, 1,000 detonators, two tons of potassium chlorate and oxide of iron, seven gallons of sulphuric acid and four cwts. of aluminium powder, enough to cause millions of pounds worth of damage and, what is more important than damage to property, the loss of the lives of at least 1,000 men and women.
It may be asked, with this record, with the fact that 66 of these terrorists have been convicted, what is the justification for asking for further powers, and asking for those further powers at this particular moment. I will tell the House. In the first place, these terrorists are becoming much more astute. They are careful now not to be caught with arms and explosives upon them. They move quickly from place to place. They are here to-day and gone to-morrow. As a rule, they leave no written instructions, but give their orders by word of mouth. Time after time in recent weeks the police have been baulked by the absence of power to search and control suspects who, they were convinced, were terrorists. That was the case after the Piccadilly outrage. The police were convinced that they had arrested some of the perpetrators, but they had not evidence sufficient to take action in a court of law, and the result was that these suspected persons after a day or two were released.
Experience has shown that further powers are essential if grave loss of life and property is to be avoided; but there are two other reasons why we need these further powers. I said just now that in the early chapters of this campaign attention was concentrated upon damage to property. In recent weeks several cases have been brought to our notice that show that the campaign henceforth is to be much more ruthless and is not to take account of human life. Thirdly, and perhaps this is the most important reason

why these powers are urgently required, we have in our possession reliable information that the compaign is being closely watched and actively stimulated by foreign organisations. I would ask the House not to press me for details. It would not be in the public interest to divulge them but they must accept my assurance that these are not unchecked suspicions founded upon gossip, but definite conclusions reached upon reliable data.
In face of these reports of foreign intrigue, in face of six months experience that shows that we need further powers, can Parliament safely adjourn without strengthening the forces of law and order? Suppose that in August or September we were faced with war, or an emergency of some kind, would not the danger of serious sabotage be immeasurably increased by these terrorist outrages? They were within an inch of blowing up Hammersmith Bridge, they were within an inch of blowing up the Southwark Power Station, they were within an inch of blowing up the aqueduct on the North Circular Road; they have carefully surveyed the more important bridges, railways works, munition dumps, war factories and aerodromes. They have been engaged upon a plan to blow up the Houses of Parliament. If a series of outrages such as these took place in the critical days of an emergency, how serious it would be for the country and how defenceless, and rightly defenceless, would any Government not be that had not taken every possible precaution against it. In view of these facts I am certain that the country approves and demands that more drastic action should be taken against the plotters and perpetrators of these crimes against the community.
What then should these new powers be? How can we avoid their trenching upon liberties that have always been our most cherished possessions? Let me come to the powers that are proposed in the Bill. Let me begin by drawing the attention of hon. Members to the problem with which we are trying to deal. It is essential that we should keep in mind during these discussions that the problem is the problem of the men and women who, we are convinced, are engaged in the plot, but against whom we have not sufficient evidence to obtain conviction in a law court. Let us be quite clear on


that point at the start of these discussions. They do not carry arms, so that we cannot prosecute them under the Firearms Act; they are clever enough not to have explosives on their premises, so that we cannot prosecute them under the Explosives Act, so that the police cannot search their homes. Many of these suspects are here to-day and gone tomorrow. Most of them—let the House note this fact—are comparatively recent arrivals in this country. These are the suspects against whom this Bill is directed. The suspects against whom we desire to exercise these powers claim, generally, to be citizens of Eire.
Keeping in mind the objective of the Bill let us for a moment consider the various alternatives which may be suggested to deal with it. First of all, there is the alternative which has probably occurred to any hon. Member who has thought about this problem; he has asked himself this question: Why should we not proscribe the I.R.A. as an illegal organisation and make it a criminal offence for anyone to be a member of it? The answer to that question is a simple one. So far as I know, there is no list of members of the I.R.A., certainly no circulated list of the members, and I do not believe it would be possible in one case out of a hundred to prove that this or that suspect was a member of the I.R.A. I set aside, therefore, that method for dealing with this emergency.
I come to the second alternative; the proposal to set up a system of passports and identity cards between Ireland and Great Britain. A further examination of that method goes to show that it is likely to be ineffective. In the first place, there is the very large number of men and women constantly passing between Ireland and these snores, the narrowness of the passage between Ireland and Scotland, the ease with which people may pass backward and forward between Southern and Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to these shores; and, thirdly, the fact that a passport without full knowledge about the bearer of the passport is of no use at all. The mere fact that a man carries a passport or an identity card is no check unless you have some information about him from the place from which he comes. For these reasons, and as things are now—I do not wish to prejudice what may happen in

some indefinite future—we have set aside the alternative method of passports.
There is a third alternative; it is a rough-and-ready method, and has a great deal of attractiveness to people who have not gone fully into its application. If is the method of internment; why not intern these suspects as we interned foreign suspects during the War? Here again I do not wish to prejudge the actions of any future Government or of this Government in some new situation, but I say to the House to-day that, as things are, I am opposed to the method of internment. I think it looks, and is, much too like the system of concentration camps. Further, I say this. When I was Secretary of State for India I had a great deal of to do with the problem of internment, and I say that one of the difficulties of internment is that to intern a man may be comparatively easy, but it is a much more difficult problem to know when and how to release him. For these reasons the Government have set aside these three alternatives and have fallen back upon the proposals contained in the Bill.
Speaking generally these proposals are founded upon the action of the Dominion Governments. I believe there are similar powers of deportation and prohibition in the laws of every one of the great Dominions. They are also founded upon the very valuable experience we have gained from our administration of the Aliens Act, under which the Secretary of State has executive power of prohibiting the entry of aliens, deporting these aliens and making aliens register. These three powers we are proposing to apply to this limited number of misguided terrorists. It is the first time we have ever applied them to British subjects, I acknowledge that fact, but I say that it is necessary to apply them now and I say to the House that in this emergency I believe they are essential.
We have tried to make it clear in the Bill, and if during the Committee stage we can make it clearer we will do so, that the Bill is intended to deal only with this limited number of misguided individuals, and, secondly, that it is a temporary Measure to meet a passing emergency. We have expressly restricted the duration of the Bill to a period of two years. We believe also that the individuals with


whom we shall be dealing will in the main be recent arrivals to these shores, and that is the reason why we have put in the Bill a 20 years limit. A 20 years limit may sound a long time, and it is possible that it may be open to the kind of objection which I have seen stated by some critics, as to how it would deal with a young man of 19½ years. I will give the House this assurance, that we shall deal with a case of that kind sensibly and reasonably. These powers are permissive, they are not going to be used promiscuously against a great number of people. Every case will be taken on its merits and in a case like that I cannot conceive any Secretary of State ordering the deportation of a young man of that kind to a country in which he was not born and in which he has never lived.
In addition to these powers of deportation and prohibition there is also a power which we do regard as essential—namely, the power of registration. One of the great difficulties of the police has been the fact that as this plot has developed so the outrages are almost always carried out by people who come to London and Manchester and Liverpool, it may be only for an hour or two, at any rate for a very short time, and then go again and have no residence in the actual place where the outrage is carried out. It is essential that we should give the police more effective powers to keep a check on these suspects and, accordingly, the House will see a provision in the Bill that makes it possible for the Secretary of State to order that suspects should register and should give evidence of identity.
Further there is another provision in the Bill, which the police and the Government also regard as essential, extending the powers of search. I know that the House looks with great suspicion at any extension of the right of search, but let me put to hon. Members the problem with which the police are now faced. They cannot get a search warrant against a suspect unless they convince the magistrate that it is likely that the suspect has explosives or illicit firearms in his possession. I have told the House that the terrorists are becoming much more astute and that now we scarcely ever have a suspect who has either explosives or firearms in his possession, and it has so come about in recent weeks that time after time the police have been

baulked in their attempt by inability to search the suspect's house. What we propose in the Bill is not an unlimited extension of the right of search but a very limited extension of the right of search. It is restricted to the scope of the Bill—namely, terrorist attempts, and hon. Members will find that it is based almost entirely upon the Section which gives a right of search already under the Explosives Act. We are asking the House to apply to these cases of suspects a right which we already possess under the Explosives Act.
To complete the picture, there is a further power on which the House will no doubt look with meticulous attention. There is an emergency power given to a superintendent of police to make a search without a search warrant in cases of great urgency. That provision is based on the actual experience of the police in recent weeks. We have had cases in which the police have obtained a search warrant against a particular individual in a particular house. They have gone to the house, it may be at great risk of their own lives in the middle of the night, and found that the man has changed his lodgings, it may be has only gone down the street to another address or a little further a field, and it is essential in the interests of public security that there should be no delay and that the superintendent of police should be able to follow up the clue at once and go without any further delay to the address that he has been given.
I have given to the House the outline of the proposals contained in the Bill. The whole basis of them is this special emergency. There must be power in the hands of the Executive to act on information which is short proof in the legal sense. The responsibility for such executive action must rest on the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. As to an appeal tribunal—here I come to a question which I know is in the minds of hon. Members. An appeal tribunal, in the view of the Government, will either demand a legal procedure which in the nature of things is not applicable to these cases of suspects, or it will accept the Home Secretary's word and merely provide him with a screen against criticism for what is really his own executive action. Our view—and it is a view we have reached after very careful and impartial consideration—is that it is better to avoid subterfuges and to state


frankly that the acts taken under this Bill are executive acts and that the Government, being responsible, must answer charges in Parliament if the powers are abused.
These are the Government's proposals. They are based on the actual experiences of the last six months. They are doubly urgent both on the ground of order and security and on the ground of even graver risk if a war emergency came upon us. They are drastic, but drastic action is necessary. They are novel, but we are living in altogether abnormal times. The Government are convinced that in the interests of the State the Bill must be passed without delay. But they wish it, if possible, to be the Bill not only of the Executive, but of the whole House, and they will be prepared to consider with impartial care any proposals for improving it, provided that the Bill in its final form gives the Executive and the police the effective powers that are needed to deal with cases of suspicion to which a legal procedure is not applicable and with a grave emergency that threatens the lives of our citizens and the security of the State.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think every hon. Member regrets the events which have created a situation calling for new powers on the part of the Executive. I should like to express my view emphatically, and irrespective of the political motives behind the I.R.A. campaign, that terrorist methods will achieve nothing. I do not believe that in these days the people of this country, having witnessed the use of terrorism abroad, will ever have solutions of political problems forced upon them against their will. I imagine that I part company with many hon. Members when I say that I desire to see a kind of united Ireland, which would not perhaps commend itself to the majority of hon. Members, but the way in which a minority have chosen to attain those ends will, I believe, defeat their own objects. As we know now, there are more rational ways of solving our current problems than by violence.
Everybody, I think, has been stirred by these stupid outrages that have taken place in recent months. Indiscriminate action directed, so the Home Secretary has told us, primarily against property, but likely to injure individuals, completely ignorant of what all the bother

is about, is completely indefensible, and is repugnant to British public opinion. Nor can it achieve any political object. And the problem with which we are faced to-day, goes deeper than that, as we have learned from the Home Secretary. The question of public safety is involved. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an attack upon an important bridge. There have been attacks upon trains. There have been mysterious large-scale fires; and naturally, as a politician and therefore having a suspicious mind, I have wondered whether those mysterious fires might have been caused, not by accident, but by design. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that, in what, I gather, is a sort of developing campaign, there is a danger of industrial sabotage. If I had time, I should like to go into that aspect of the problem. I think there is a serious danger of sabotage in factories engaged in the production of the means of defence. One is entitled to ask where this campaign is going to end. There was a hint in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—and I am wondering whether there is not the probability —that this technique might be used in time of war. The right hon. Gentleman talked very guardedly—quite rightly so— of foreign Powers. I do not intend to ask him who provides the money for this campaign. If this be veiled, indirect aggression, then the situation we are facing becomes even more serious. But I do not propose to dwell upon that aspect of the problem. Prevention is better than cure, and I understand that prevention is the primary purpose of this Bill.
I, and most of my hon. Friends, accept the view that, in present circumstances, further powers are necessary to cope with this very ugly and very unfortunate situation. Therefore, we shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. It is not that we are satisfied with the Bill, as I shall try to show later in my remarks; but we shall not oppose it, because we attach importance to the closing words of the Home Secretary, when he referred to the Bill being a Bill of the whole House. Consequently, I take it that in further stages the Bill will be capable of amendment. While it is essential that the State should take all the measures necessary for the protection of life and property, there are, in our view, proposals in the Bill which are somewhat


alarming, and with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt, I was going to say artfully, but perhaps I had better say skilfully, and in a way that avoided some of the major problems.
Most hon. Members are jealous of the liberty of the subject. Private Members on all sides of the House, and the organised Opposition, must always scrutinise with a most critical eye any suggestion of an increase in the powers of the executive. We have had experience of the operation of the Official Secrets Act, which was passed into law for one purpose and in the course of time most shamefully used for other purposes. We have had experience of the administration of the famous D.O.R.A., that most unfortunate dame who covered a multitude of innocences which were converted into sins that nobody had ever suspected. It is from the point of view of the possible future use to which this Bill might be put, from the point of view of the liberty of the subject and the powers of the executive, that we have to examine the Bill very carefully. I know that the Bill has a title that is tightly drawn; it would appear on the surface that the Bill could not be used in a manner never intended by Parliament; but after recent experiences with regard to the Official Secrets Act, my faith in the effectiveness of the titles of Bills has gone by the board.
I believe, in the first place, that the Bill takes very dangerous powers for the executive, and secondly, that it holds serious possibilities of infringing the liberty of the subject. In 1934, there was before the House a Bill which created a good deal of suspicion on these Benches—the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. In my view, that Bill, as regards its machinery, was more satisfactory than the Bill now before the House. In the present Bill, very wide and vaguely defined powers are given to the Home Secretary. In the 1934 Act, the person who took action, or on whose decision action was taken, was a judge of the High Court. Under this Bill, it is to be the Home Secretary. I know that in this House we may not criticise judges, and I would not presume to do so; but I would say that judges are expected to be superhuman, above all suspicion of

holding views which might influence their decisions, and above all suspicion of taking decisions because of panic. Nobody expects Home Secretaries to be superhuman. Experience has shown that Home Secretaries are in no way superhuman. Often they are human; often they are, quite naturally, guided by political prejudices and views. They are, quite naturally, swept off their feet at moments of panic. I would rather that the power in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), of the Bill should rest with a judge of the High Court than with the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary is given enormous powers in Clause 1, Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). He is given powers to deal with people who are suspected of certain crimes, if they have not been in this country for a certain period of time. He is given powers of expulsion and powers of registration, in a way which puts many respectable citizens of this country, under the terms of Clause 1, Sub-section (2), in the position of being, one might almost say, undesirable aliens. It seems to me that those powers are judicial in character and ought not to be exercised by a political chief. I have no doubt that many Members with greater legal knowledge than I have will tear to pieces the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clause 1.
In Clause 4 the question of the liberty of the subject is especially at stake, where large powers are given for detention, where any constable may arrest any person whom he suspects to have committed an offence under the Act. I do not think that is the kind of power that ought to be given in that kind of way, nor do I think it right that there should be given powers of detention without any charge being made for an unspecified period of time. The right hon. Gentleman referred to concentration camps. These small evils may grow into large ones. I do not know on what scale the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of the number of persons whom he might wish to detain, but it seems to be clear that, if the liberty of the subject is to be retained, the power of detention without trial ought to be very strictly limited, and that the power to-arrest and detain people ought to be carefully protected, and not allowed to go to the type of individuals referred to in the


Clause. I have tried to put what I regard as the general attitude we take towards the Bill. We realise the need for further powers for the Executive. We shall look very carefully at the Bill between now and the Committee stage in order to ensure that the Executive does not get for itself an authority which it ought not to exercise, and to see that injustice shall not be done to innocent subjects because of the interference which might arise under the Bill with the liberty of the subject. I hope, when it passes to the Statute Book, it will succeed in deterring any further outrages of the kind.

5.3 P.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: The Home Secretary was, very rightly, careful not to refer to the political aspect of this Measure. I most certainly do not intend to make any political reference except, as a reason for my intervention in the Debate, to say a word on behalf of myself and other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. It might have seemed perhaps rather odd if no Member representing an Ulster seat had said anything on a Bill of this character, because, after all, as the Home Secretary said, the object of the terrorists in their campaign is to try to bring about the withdrawal of the British forces from Northern Ireland. My only reference of a political kind will be to say that I agree most heartily with both the Home Secretary and the acting Leader of the Opposition that a campaign of terrorism of this kind is the very last thing ever likely to influence the political opinions of the British people. My friends and I representing Ulster constituencies are naturally supporters of the Bill. After all, this House of Commons is not the first Assembly which has had to take some special measures of this kind to meet a similar campaign. Quite recently the Southern Irish Parliament have had to carry through very drastic legislation of a similar kind. Indeed, I think the legislation they have passed is very much more drastic than anything proposed by His Majesty's Government. I think in certain circumstances they took powers of internment, and in certain circumstances they also proposed to set up special courts, apart from the ordinary courts of the country, to deal with matters arising out of the terrorist campaign.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is it not a fact that in that Bill, in case of offences against the State, there is both a power of appeal and also a power of the Legislature to repeal the Act at any time by Motion?

Sir H. O'Neill: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right.

Mr. Benn: You did not mention it.

Sir H. O'Neill: I was merely quoting, shortly and without going into detail, the fact that another Legislature had passed extreme legislation to deal with a similar situation. Of course, as is well known the Parliament and Government in Northern Ireland had, many years ago, to bring in special legislation to deal with a similar state of affairs.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many people have been detained without trial in Northern Ireland since the beginning of the year?

Sir H. O'Neill: I said when I started that I did not wish to enter into the political aspect of this discussion. I could not tell the hon. Member, but I think I am entitled, I hope without interruption, to say that some time ago it became necessary for the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland to pass drastic and very special legislation to deal with a campaign of this character. Members in this House, probably, do not realise that in Northern Ireland we have been faced with a terrorist campaign of this nature on and off, without much intermission during the whole of the last 20 years. That campaign has sometimes been more violent and sometimes less violent. Sometimes it has taken the character, of serious loss of life through outrages. At other times it has taken a character such as the present campaign in Great Britain, namely, attacks upon Army recruiting offices and places of that sort by a rather crude kind of bombing. In order to meet that situation special legislation had to be introduced. There was one other situation which the Northern Ireland Government had to meet, and which, I am glad to say, I do not think the British Government have to meet, and I hope never will, and that is the very difficult question of the intimidation of witnesses. These terrorist organisations sometimes threaten witnesses. I hope that no such situation will arise in this country—it is not the


character of the British people to be threatened—but that was, and is, a definite aspect of the situation with which the Northern Ireland Government have had to deal.
I support the Bill. Most heartily do I reciprocate what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the splendid conduct of the police forces in this country in dealing with this very difficult situation, conduct which perhaps one could divide into two categories, first of all the actual conduct of the police forces and the individuals in them and, secondly, the success with which they have met in bringing the criminals to justice. It is no mean achievement that 66 of these terrorists should have been convicted. In common with Members in all parts of the House I dislike these special measures which aim at impinging upon the liberty of the subject, but in times of crisis you have to bring in special measures to deal with that crisis and I hope, when the Bill becomes law, it will have the desired effect, and that this ill-judged campaign of violence and outrage will be successfully overcome.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Foot: Even before the Debate began every Member throughout the House was fully aware of the general circumstances which have given rise to the Bill. Those circumstances have been amplified in the account of recent events given us by the Home Secretary and, of course, everyone, in whatever part of the House he may sit, must agree that this is a very dangerous conspiracy which, if it were allowed to continue, would imperil life as well as property. If there are good grounds for the belief that certain persons resident in this country, or likely in the near future to come to this country, are parties to or sympathisers with that conspiracy, everyone must agree that there is a strong case for subjecting them to some form of restraint. It may be reasonable to suggest that there should be powers in certain circumstances to require them to leave this country.
No one in any part of the House is likely to quarrel with the aims of the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary upon his decision not to resort to internment. I think that is a decision that ought to be universally welcomed, though I noticed that it was greeted with

ominous silence on that side. The cheers all came from this side, and none from that. I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little unfortunate in the support that he has just received from Northern Ireland. The Bill goes a long way, but at least we can be thankful that it does not resemble the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act, which has been in force, not for the period of a brief emergency but ever since 1922, and which violates every standard of British justice. Under that Act over 30 people have been imprisoned in Northern Ireland since the beginning of this year without any trial of any kind, and without any charge having been formulated against them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must ask the hon. Member to remember that there is. a definite rule about criticisms in this House of the actions of other Parliaments in the Empire.

Mr. Benn: That raises a very important point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That rule applies, I understand, to Dominion Parliaments, but the Parliament in Belfast is a subordinate Parliament to this Parliament.

Sir S. Hoare: May I remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Mr. Speaker has more than once ruled that the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Government of Northern Ireland and not of this House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That confirms what I was about to point out. The Parliament of Northern Ireland is not subordinate in all matters: in the matter of the legislation in question, the Parliament of Northern Ireland is solely concerned and it is a matter which is within the powers of another Parliament. The Ruling of Mr. Speaker was that matters which were entirely for the Northern Ireland Parliament could not be criticised in this House.

Mr. Buchanan: But surely there is also this point? I admit that Mr. Speaker has given that Ruling, but if an hon. Member who supports a Measure of this kind has been, in some degree, responsible for another Measure in another part of the world is it not permissible for other hon. Members here to draw attention to that fact? When an hon. Member is supporting this Bill is it not permissible for other


hon. Members to refer to action taken by him, or for which he was partly responsible in Northern Ireland? While it is not our part here to criticise the Northern Ireland Government, is it not permissible to criticise the action, in Northern Ireland, of a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament who is here and who supported a certain Bill in Northern Ireland?

Sir Ronald Ross: My right hon. Friend is not a member of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is putting a hypothetical case which does not, in my judgment, arise in this instance; it may be in order to refer to the action in another Parliament of an hon. Member of this House, but that question has not arisen now.

Sir R. Ross: Would I be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in proceeding now with my interruption of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be better that the hon. Member should not do so.

Mr. Foot: I had not intended originally to refer to Northern Ireland. I only did so because I gathered that the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act was being held up as a kind of model to us, and I wanted to express the hope that we should never in any circumstances adopt a measure which was anything like that Act.

Sir R. Ross: I think the hon. Member ought to know of what that Act consists. The people to whom he has alluded as having been interned have the right of appeal to a tribunal, a right which they have not exercised, because they are members of the I.R.A.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member's remark shows the importance of the Ruling which I have just given.

Sir R. Ross: I am sorry if I have transgressed, but I was rather led off by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Foot: If I have succeeded in making plain what I wanted to say about the Special Powers Act, I am perfectly willing to leave that aspect of the matter. As I have said, we all appreciate the

gravity of the circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced, but even those circumstances cannot altogether justify the precise provisions of the Bill, and especially of Clause I. The right hon. Gentleman referred to totalitarian methods. Even if we are dealing with a serious emergency, I am sure it is the desire of the whole House to keep as far away as possible from anything which could be described as totalitarian methods.
I wish to address my remarks particularly to Clause I. Roughly speaking, it comes to this—that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that any person is connected with, or a sympathiser with, or an instigator of, this conspiracy, he may send that person into exile; he may put him under a system of registration, requiring him to register with the police as he moves from place to place, or, if such a person is outside the United Kingdom, he may prevent him from entering this country. The operative words of the Clause are "If the Secretary of State is satisfied." That is the gist of the matter. The Secretary of State is the sole judge; there is to be no trial, and there is to be no appeal. It is true that under a later Clause if a person fails to comply with an Order which the Secretary of State has made, he is brought before a court, but the court cannot inquire into the grounds upon which the Order was made. It can only satisfy itself, first, that the Order was made by the Secretary of State, and, secondly, that it has not been complied with. If satisfied on those two points it must convict, even though the original Order might have been without any justification. These matters are left entirely to the Department.
I ask the House to consider what could happen under Clauses 1 and 2 in their present form. First, a British citizen is served with an expulsion order. He is arrested without warrant and kept in prison for an unspecified period. The Order tells him to leave the country. He may have been in this country for many years. His home, his business and his connections may be here. His family may reside in this country. Yet he can be sent into exile by the Order of the Secretary of State. This is a serious matter. As the Bill stands, he is not, apparently, to be informed of the grounds on which the Order is made. He does not


know what charges he has to meet. He has no opportunity of answering, because there is nothing in the nature of a trial, and, indeed, no impartial investigation at all before the Order is made. It is no answer to say that we are dealing with a dangerous conspiracy. The vital question is, who is to decide whether a man is innocent or guilty, and by what methods is that decision to be reached?
When we are discussing a question of this kind we have to deal, to a certain extent, in truisms, and perhaps it is a truism to say that we must bear in mind in these cases that, while we may be dealing with dangerous conspirators, we may on the other hand, be dealing with innocent men. If a man is innocent, what method is open to him under the Bill of establishing his innocence? A false allegation may be made against him. One can imagine how easy it would be in circumstances of this kind to make a false charge. If one member of the conspiracy, already under lock and key, makes a statement he may implicate people who are also parties to the conspiracy. But he may, because of some private spite, seek to implicate innocent persons. The Home Office may believe his statement. It would be possible for a man so charged to clear himself, if there was any form of hearing or trial at which he could put forward his own defence. It struck me that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he did not say a word about the kind of investigation which it was proposed to carry out before an Order of this kind was made. I suppose we shall be told that there will be an investigation by the Home Office, but every hon. Member knows that that will be entirely different from a judicial inquiry. In the first place, the accused man will probably not be there. The charge will not be formulated at any rate in his presence. There will be no opportunity of testing by cross-examination the allegations against him. Above all, those who reach the decision will not be judges but civil servants.
We rightly pay tributes from time to time in this House to the efficiency of civil servants, but that does not mean that we should entrust to them functions which are not properly their's, and one function which should never, in any circumstances, be entrusted to civil servants is the administration of justice. I hesi-

tate to remind the House of the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee, with which hon. Members must be familiar. Having gone into this matter they said definitely that judicial questions should not be determined by Government Departments and these are, preeminently, judicial questions. The objection which many of us feed to a Clause of this kind is that, by it, we remove every safeguard for the man who is innocent. The principal criticism is that he cannot know what is being charged against him. One could make a great many quotations bearing on this point. I notice that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) in a newspaper some days ago reminded his readers of a provision of Magna Carta. It might not be out of place to remind this House of a provision of the Petition of Right which they passed when they were dealing with a not dissimilar situation. Article 5, having referred to previous Statutes passed for the protection of the subject, against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, says:
Nevertheless against the tenor of the said statutes and other good laws and statutes of your realm to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of late been imprisoned without any cause shown; and when for their deliverance they were brought before your justices by Your Majesty's writ of habeas corpus thereto undergo and receive as the court should order and their keepers commanded to certify the causes of their detainer, no cause was certified but that, they were detained by Your Majesty's special command signified by the Lords of Your Privy Council, and yet were returned back to the several prisons without being charged with. anything to which they might make answer according to the law.
That was one of the major complaints in the Petition of Right adopted by this House, and it seems to have a singular application to the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill.
I know it will be said that the Bill is intended to apply only to a limited class of persons, that is to say, those who have not had 20 years' continuous residence in this country. Again the point arises, who is to be the judge of that: Under Clause 1 the sole judge is the Home Secretary. This is the kind of question on which there can be a conflict of evidence. It is not always easy for a man to establish beyond doubt that he has lived in a certain country for 20 years, even if a chance is provided for him to do so. A man may have been in this


country for 20 years or more, or his home may have been in this country during all that time, and yet he might be unable to satisfy the Home Office on that point. Surely there ought to be some independent authority to whom he could appeal and say, "I am not one of those who fall within the scope of this Measure."
There is one argument which was used by the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and which has also appeared in some newspapers which I find it a little difficult to follow. It is said that, after all, the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament and that Parliament can inquire into any misuse of these powers. That seems to be rather a remarkable argument to bring forward as a complete justification of the powers under Clause I. You might as well say, "Let us abolish our criminal courts altogether. Let us close down the Old Bailey and the assizes, quarter sessions, and courts of summary jurisdiction. Let people be imprisoned simply by the fiat of the Home Secretary and rely simply on the Parliamentary safeguard." I think I am the very last Member in this House to under-estimate the value of Parliamentary control over the Executive, but it is absurd to suggest that Parliamentary control can ever be a proper substitute for the administration of justice by the courts. Sometimes we get something which is a judicial or quasi-judicial question raised in this House. What happens? Nobody ever suggests that the rights or wrongs of the matter should be decided by this House in open debate. What we always ask for is an impartial inquiry, and what we are asking here is that, in relation to Clause I, before the powers are exercised there shall also be some form of impartial inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he was willing to consider Amendments, and I was glad to hear him say it. I hope he will consider this suggestion, that whenever it is proposed to make an expulsion order, there should be an inquiry at some stage by an independent tribunal, not necessarily a court of appeal from the right hon. Gentleman. He referred to Dominion legislation. I am afraid I have not looked at those Acts, so that I cannot follow the comparison, but I have spent some time latterly in looking at some of the Colonial ordinances. In some parts of the Colonial Empire there is also provision for deport-

ing undesirable British subjects, and what happens? I am taking the Ordinance which was recently passed in the case of Sierra Leone as an example. I never thought the time would come when it would be necessary for me to hold up the Colonial Office as a model, but I think it is a more satisfactory system than that which is proposed here. What happens there? The Governor decides that a certain British subject should be deported. He has him arrested, and after his arrest he is brought before a judge. The judge holds an inquiry into all the circumstances. Not only can he hear the evidence which is brought before him, but he can himself call other witnesses whom he wants to hear, and then, after his inquiry, he draws up a report and makes a recommendation to the Governor, who acts upon that recommendation.
I would seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there might be something like that here. I can fully see that there may be some difficulty in having an open court. There might be many cases perhaps in which it would be necessary for the court to sit in camera. I do not think that that is generally desirable, but it might be unavoidable here. Also it may be that the final responsibility must rest with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am prepared to go even that length, but let there be some opportunity for the accused man to know the case against him, to know what charges he has to meet, and to make his defence. If you do not have some system of that kind, if you merely have some departmental committee or some official, however able he may be, sitting in a Department, you are bound to have errors sooner or later, and you are bound to have the position arising when innocent men will be deported, it may be for the rest of their lives. That is the principal suggestion that I should wish to make to the right hon. Gentleman.
I want, also, to say a few words about Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 provides that there shall be no time limit for the expulsion order; that is to say, a man who is suspected, perhaps unjustly, may be exiled for the rest of his life. I should have thought that there should be some provision by which expulsion orders should come under periodical review. Then, in Sub-section (2) of that Clause, there is the provision about arrest with-


out warrant, and detention until a ship sails. It seems to me that under this provision a man may be kept in prison for a quite indefinite period of time, still with no charge preferred against him and with no opportunity of making his defence. It is true that he must be placed on a ship as soon as may be, but how is that provision going to be enforced? In order to understand this, one has to look at the next stage, at Sub-section (a) of Clause 4, where it is provided that:
any person detained under powers conferred by this Act shall be deemed to be in lawful custody and may be detained in any prison or in any other place directed by the Secretary of State.
I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in his place, and I think it would be of interest to the House if he would give an opinion on this point. If a man were put in prison under the provisions of Clause 2, and if the authorities did not proceed to put him on the first ship, or an early ship, but were to keep him a considerable length of time, would he be able to obtain a writ of habeas corpus if this Bill went through unamended? I think we ought to have an opinion on that matter, because it is a matter of concern to the whole of the House.
As regards Clause 3, I will only say that it seems to me that there should be some relation between the crime which we are endeavouring to punish and the maximum penalty provided in the Bill. Under Clause 3 we are not dealing with people who have committed offences under the Explosives Act; we are simply dealing with people who have broken an order that has been made, people who have perhaps failed to catch the boat when they were told to catch it, or broken some minor condition of an order. It is not a very important point, but it seems to me that in a case of that kind it ought not to be provided that there is a maximum punishment of five years' penal servitude.
Reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman to the question of search warrants, and he expressed the distaste felt in every quarter of the House for extending the rights of search. The provisions of Sub-section (3) are, of course, precisely the same as those which were contained in the Incitement to Disaffection Act, but Sub-section (4) goes further

even than that Measure. I think I am right in saying that the only precedent for the powers contained in Sub-section (4) is to be found in the Official Secrets Acts. Here the police officer is given the extraordinary power to search without a justice's warrant in the case of an emergency, but who is to be the judge of the case of emergency? That is left to the sole discretion of the police themselves. I admit that when you are dealing with the sort of case which the right hon. Gentleman described, of a man who moves two doors down the street and whom you want to apprehend quickly, it may be necessary to have emergency powers, but I would suggest that there should be a slight amendment of the wording of the Sub-section, and that the police officer should be required to have reasonable grounds for apprehending a state of emergency. If that were done, he would not in the last resort be the sole judge of the emergency, but the reasonableness of his grounds could be tried out in a court of law.

Mr. Macquisten: And he could be sued for damages?

Mr. Foot: If he exercised the power without any ground at all, and had no real reason for suspecting a state of emergency, he would be open to an action.

Mr. Macquisten: Then would it not be right to say, if he exercised the power maliciously?

Mr. Foot: It is an extreme case, and it may not arise, but I think there ought to be an ultimate safeguard when we are giving these quite extraordinary powers. Finally, I would make this suggestion. I make these suggestions now, because we have only one day in Committee on the Bill, and the best thing is to outline now the Amendments which we shall desire to put down. I see that the duration of the Bill is to be for two years. The right hon. Gentleman himself said most frankly that these are very exceptional and very drastic powers, and I am convinced that he himself would not have proposed them unless he had felt that something like this was imperative. Would it not be possible to confine the operation of the Bill, at any rate in the first place, to one year, and then continue it, if necessary, for a second year under the Expiring Laws Continuance


Act, so that the House would be certain to have an opportunity in 12 months' time to review the working of the Measure? If that could be done, I think it would go some way to meet the apprehensions which are felt, both in this House and outside.
These are the detailed criticisms that I put forward on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I hope the House, when we get to the Committee stage, will most jealously scrutinise the provisions of the Bill. Never before in time of peace, or at any rate in modern times, has a Minister come to this House and asked for powers like these. I do not think that anybody will dispute that they run counter to all our traditions in this country. We talk a great deal nowadays about the freedom that we enjoy, and we are accustomed to contrast our happy lot with the servitude that prevails in less happier lands. But where does the essential difference lie? It does not merely lie in the use of the ballot at election times, because there can be such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. I have always thought that the essential difference lies in this, that in a free country the relations between one citizen and another and between the citizen and the State are determined by law, to the making of which everyone can contribute, but in a dictatorship they are determined by the unfettered caprice of persons in positions of authority. That, to my mind, is the essential difference. We know, of course, that in modern times the State must have considerable power, but what matters is that it should not in any case be arbitrary power. Here we are asked, for the first time which is not a time of war, to invest a Government Department with powers of exile, powers of imprisonment, and powers of search. We all of us in all parts of the House—and I want to emphasise this —share the common determination to protect the community against outrage, but in giving effect to that determination, let us see to it that we do not destroy those essential safeguards for the rights of the citizen which are the real distinction between a free State and a slave State.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I have a good many things that I want to say, but I do not want to take too long. Therefore, I shall try to follow the excellent example set by the

right hon. Gentleman in not referring to the provisions of the Bill. Let me say at once that I have no connection with Ireland and no sympathy with these particular outrages, but the fact that no one has any sympathy with them is an additional reason for being extremely careful that the sins of one group of persons are not used to diminish the liberties of others or to establish precedents for diminishing the liberties of others. Let me also associate myself with the tribute paid to the heroic conduct of civilians and police. I can always admire a quality of which I do not possess one atom myself, but that is no reason for passing legislation that ought not to be passed, and my case against this Bill is, while accepting everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about the urgency of the situation, that there is no justification at all for a Bill like this.
I thought the right hon. Gentleman was not very comfortable, and I humbly put it forward as a tribute to him, in introducing this Bill. At the same time he was, as one would expect, very plausible and convincing in presenting his case. I could not help thinking that an equally plausible case for derogating practically every known safeguard of the law could have been put forward 50 times in the last 100 years. It could have been put forward with incomparably greater force in relation to the Chartists. It could have been put forward with at least as great force in respect of Lord Carson and his Irish colleagues in 1913. It could have been put forward with regard to the epidemic of garrotting, it could be put forward with regard to ordinary burglary, if it happened to become epidemic and, in my opinion, it might be put forward with regard to war profiteers, though I myself would regret it in all those cases, even the last. The right hon. Gentleman says that these people are getting more astute and moving more quickly from point to point. The right hon. Gentleman will not, I hope, think me guilty of malice if I say "So is he." He says they pass on their orders by word of mouth. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman does that or not, but surely it can be said of almost every criminal that he is getting more astute and moving more quickly from point to point when he sees anybody moving forward with large feet and a bowler hat.
The right hon. Gentleman assured the House that foreign organisations were closely watching this campaign and assisting it. I accept that statement. I do not normally accept any statement of this Government, but I accept that statement, and I ask "What on earth has it got to do with this Bill?" It is just the sort of dangerous and astute statement put forward to enlist the sympathy of the House and the public in order to pass legislation which ought not to be passed. Either you can control these people by the ordinary processes of the law or you cannot—in which case you have to ask for some additional powers—but is it more difficult to detect an Irishman moving from place to place because some person of an unspecified nationality somewhere in Europe has handed some money in Ireland or America and elsewhere to some young gentleman whom the Home Secretary quite fairly and rightly describes as a misguided young man? That is typical of the dangerous way in which this sort of legislation can be passed by a wakening of momentary sympathy and anxiety in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman is a past-master of advocacy. If I could call him the right hon. and learned Gentleman I should feel there was a great addition to the skill of my profession; but he does it without legal training. His production of photostat plans, which I gather is seven months old, was dramatic indeed. If I were in the secrets of the Home Office, which I am not, I can imagine that I should find in their archives 500 similar documents in ten different languages spread over the last 70 years, but they did not bring Home Secretaries to this House asking us to tear up every safeguard of the system that we have slowly and painfully built up. The truth is that this sort of legislation is just the thing for which every impatient policeman longs, and just the thing which every guardian of our liberties ought to be very careful that the policeman does not get. If I were the head of Scotland Yard— and I share the relief of Scotland Yard that I am not—and had a lot of very difficult burglaries, and if I had a Home Secretary who said that if I sent to him a file which persuaded him that John Snooks, of Balham, was at the back of these burglaries, he would then write out

a form to the effect that he was satisfied that John Snooks was at the back of them, and hand it to another policeman who would serve a notice upon John Snooks under which John Snooks would be exiled to Iceland, I should feel satisfied that I could get rid of those burglaries.
Our judicial system has been built up on the assumption that in relation to our fellow-citizens the Home Secretary is not to say that if he is satisfied with this and that, they are to be sent to some other place where they will be without a living, without their families and without anything to live upon, and that the first thing they will ever have heard of it is when the Order is issued. In this country the first thing you ought to hear if you are accused of a crime is that you are going to be charged with the crime. If it is necessary in order to secure your attendance you can be arrested, but if it is not necessary to secure your attendance by arrest you need not even be arrested. The right hon. Gentleman rejected other proposals—a little tentatively as to some of them—and held them over as a threat. I cannot discuss what he as rejected, only what he is seeking power to do. He uses the position of the alien as an analogy. It is a false analogy, because exile is a very terrible thing when it is exile, but to an alien exile from Great Britain is, in the vast majority of cases, not exile, because an alien is, normally-speaking, a person who has not got his roots in Great Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman referred, naturally enough, to the fact that something of which he was assuring the House was not the unchecked product of gossip. As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has pointed out, there is very real danger in the unchecked product of gossip, and it applies far more in the case of the individual than in the case of any general principle. That he has established beyond reasonable doubt, even on evidence which he does not disclose, that there is, say, foreign money engaged in this conspiracy is a matter about which one can imagine the Home Secretary, from the volume of information coming to him, would be able to assure the House with great ease; but how is he going to satisfy himself in the same way, and beyond the possibility of doubt, about the case of Thomas O'Flaherty?


The name and address of O'Flaherty may be in the notebook of an arrested person because someone has maliciously put it there, and when O'Flaherty is suddenly turned out of England we shall never know whether the Home Secretary had any better evidence than that.
He tells us, of course, that he would use the very greatest care and circumspection with regard to, say, a young man of 19½, but the right hon. Gentleman has told us also that he has responsibilities. While, on the one hand, he would want to use the greatest care and circumspection about a particular person, on the other hand, he would want to use the greatest care and circumspection about the safety of the country, and the very fact that these drastic and unconstitutional powers have been placed in his hands would make him say, "I am not going to take the risk. I am going to turn O'Flaherty out. If he is not turned out and if the one chance comes off and he blows up Hammersmith Bridge I shall get criticised, and so I shall take the lesser evil, even though it is uncomfortable for Thomas O'Flaherty, and turn him out." We have spent several centuries building up a system so that the Home Secretary shall not do that sort of thing. As it is, he prepares, in effect, a charge against somebody of something which is very much in the nature of a criminal act though not technically made a crime. When I say "he" prepares it, it is prepared by somebody in Scotland Yard, it may be a high official, who in his turn is acting on the reports of a police spy or, it may be, acting on the information of an agent provocateur—you have to use those gentlemen. This will come into a file and it will pass from a civil servant to the Home Secretary, who will issue the judgment and the sentence and the man will know nothing about it until the sentence is communicated to him. The man will have no chance of saying "As a matter of fact it is another man of the same name living in the next street."
Do not let us have any subterfuge about the Home Secretary answering for these things in the House of Commons. Let us consider how he would answer. Thomas O'Flaherty has an order made against him and is removed from Balham to Dublin. He writes from Dublin to some Members of Parliament. The first 15

Members he tries will say that they can not be bothered and that he is probably guilty anyhow, but the sixteenth asks a question in the House of Commons and the right hon. Gentleman will then say, "I am very sorry, but I realty cannot tell you anything, because to do so would be to disclose facts that are very dangerous to disclose." I write off—supposing it is myself—to Thomas O'Flaherty and say, "Can you tell me anything about it?" and he says, "I have not the remotest idea. I cannot imagine who has a grudge against me." It is all very easy for the right hon. Gentleman and not much fun for Thomas O'Flaherty. The Bill refers to the Home Secretary being required to be satisfied about something or other. He has come to this House in what I hope he will forgive me for describing as a state of "controlled jitters"—they were the words used by himself, and so I am en titled to adopt them. He is perfectly calm, he is not frightened, but he thinks there is something for other people to be frightened about, and is not taking any risk. There is to be no control, no court, no inquiry, no question in the House that he cannot burke with the general approval of hon. Members opposite —

Mr. Macquisten: It is just like the Marketing Boards.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I will have a little chat about the Marketing Boards outside, but at the moment they are almost as irrelevant as Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I am not going to take any risks at this stage. I have just told the House that I must have this legislation at once, because a war might break out, and in those circumstances I am not going to take any risk, and I shall find myself, like the young lady in the story, very easily satisfied." [Interruption.] I cannot tell you that here.
I do not want to introduce any general matters of politics, but both with regard to the need for this Bill and with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction as to the guilt of Thomas O'Flaherty, are we to accept the same standard of accuracy as was applied to the description of the Czecho-Slovak £5,000,000 as a "mare's nest," or is it on all fours with the persistent failure of the Government to see any Italian troops in Spain? I am very sorry to introduce general matters,


but is there any sane person who follows politics who trusts any statement made by this Government nowadays? And yet we are asked to introduce this quite phenomenal legislation. Another thing I want to say is that what is so serious about this is that it is a proof of the utter demoralisation of public opinion that right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are not opposite and the general public seem quite indifferent about this matter. They are having the whole of their liberties destroyed and they do not care and they do not know.
It is true that the Bill applies only in respect of people who are thought by the Home Secretary to be seeking to commit acts of violence in relation to Irish affairs, but there will be a very nice precedent in a few years' time for leaving out the words "with regard to Irish affairs" and putting in the words "in relation to anything." The right hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill with a great parade of anxiety about the present situation, but there is no problem here that is new. We have had, for a long and tangled history, here, in the Colonies and in India, hundreds of abominable series of outrages and clever and widespread violence but no Home Secretary has ever come before us and said: "Please pass a Bill to abolish, with regard to anybody that I think may have taken part in this show, the whole rule of law." That is what is being asked for now.
The whole of the courts are being eliminated entirely. It is very significant, indeed, that the Home Secretary, is taking responsibility in a matter that is purely judicial, that is to say, arriving at a conclusion of fact as to whether some person is prepared to commit a violent act in the nature of a crime, or indeed, a violent crime. That is essentially a judicial function in any country. The right hon. Gentleman provides that the matter shall not even be established—on hearsay evidence if you will—to the satisfaction of a judge of the High Court and he is actually clever enough to praise himself for destroying the last vestige of our liberties so that he may take the whole of the responsibility in this House for doing something that cannot be checked.
If any hon. Member feels sufficiently bold to divide against the Bill, I will go

into the Lobby with him; not because I would not be willing that the House should grant legislation with reasonable safeguards to the right hon. Gentleman if he came here and said that he had a problem with which, while it had been tackled by the British police hundreds of times in the past, they were not capable of tackling now. As it stands, the Bill almost goes out of its way to destroy our liberties. It is all very well to say that these people are not criminals. They are only criminals if you get the right one. Even courts make mistakes, but probably in dealing with this matter the Home Secretary will not make anything else. I should be very happy to divide against the Bill for those reasons.

6.3 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The last two speeches to which we have listened have taken us back to a long forgotten age. They were admirable defences of the old liberty of the subject. The hon. Member who led for the Liberal party put his finger upon the fallacy underlying his own speech and that to which we have just listened when he said that these powers had never before been asked for in a time of peace. I deny that we are living in a time of peace. For three years democracy has been fighting with its back to the wall. For three years Fascism in every country—the I.R.A. are only a form of Fascism—has been fighting against democracy and liberty, and it is quite time that we took powers, the only powers that they will understand, to resist violence.
The Home Secretary has brought in a Bill to stop the outrages which have been going on in this country for six months, directed against this State in order to coerce public opinion. My criticism is that he should have brought in this legislation much earlier. It is because these outrages have been backed by the doctrines now sweeping over the world, and not without sympathy on the Government Front Bench, that we have not had these steps taken earlier. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken said that the Government were taking powers to deal with the I.R.A. such as they had for dealing with aliens. The hon. and learned Member said that we were treating the I.R.A. worse than aliens. I would remind him of the attitude of the Government


towards aliens during these last six months and point out that their attitude towards the I.R.A. has been fundamentally different. With all their outrages, the I.R.A. have had plenty of rope given to them and every opportunity for putting their case. If they are now to be exiled and sent back to Ireland, how does that compare with sending away the unfortunate Jewish refugees who come to this country and who have no other land to which to go, when it means sending them back to concentration camps in Germany? The people who are now speaking for the liberty of the subject should remember that Jewish refugees on the Continent are human beings just as much as are the I.R.A. and deserve at least as much attention at our hands.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does regard the I.R.A. as human beings?

Colonel Wedgwood: The I.R.A. are human beings but they are my enemies. We are fighting now for democracy, and the I.R.A. is fighting against democracy. Some of the very people who are now blowing up places with their bombs, and some who are now in our prisons, were among the 800 who went with General O'Duffy and the blessing of their church to shoot down and murder the people in Spain; and yet hon. Members ask us to treat these people better than the helpless people who harm no one and have nowhere else to fly to.
The Bill is being introduced to meet the situation, but I do not think it will do so. With whom are we taking steps to deal? With members of the I.R.A.? How do we know how many people sympathise with the I.R.A. without being members of the I.R.A.? The Government say that they are not taking steps to intern them. I was not surprised that the Government were proposing not to intern them. That would cost us far more money than sending them back to Ireland.

Mr. Foot: There is nothing in the Bill to say where they are to be sent to.

Colonel Wedgwood: There is a good deal in the laws all over the world to-day to make it difficult to send them anywhere else.

Mr. Pritt: It may be impossible to send them there.

Colonel Wedgwood: Quite likely, but "exiled" here means sending them back to the country to which they belong; where can the alien Jew go?
All parties here to-day are determined on no account to accept the solution which the I.R.A. demand. There is no chance of appeasing their terrorism. All parties in the House are agreed that we shall never consent to putting the Protestants of Ulster under the domination of the Catholics of Southern Ireland.

Mr. Logan: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly confine his remarks to what is contained in the Bill and understand it? It is neither a matter of the Protestants of Ulster nor a matter of the Catholics, which is concerned in this case.

Mr. Macquisten: Nor the I.L.P.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be attempting to discuss questions which are entirely outside the Bill.

Colonel Wedgwood: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I did not quite catch your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can guess the effect and intention of it.

Colonel Wedgwood: As put forward in the paper read out by the Home Secretary, the I.R.A. demand is that there should be a united Ireland and that the British troops should be withdrawn from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Logan: There is nothing wrong with that.

Colonel Wedgwood: That is a demand for domination of the Protestant minority by the Catholic majority in Dublin. The only people who deny it are the people in this Parliament.

Mr. Logan: There has always been a demand for a united Ireland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that he is creating considerable difficulty for the Chair by attempting to discuss the differences between Catholic and Protestant, and to do so is quite unnecessary.

Colonel Wedgwood: We are all agreed that the demands of the I.R.A., put forward by violence in this country, are inadmissible, and, therefore, there is no difference in the House on that question. The other point upon which we are, perhaps, not so agreed is that Irish citizens from Ireland and born in Ireland are as much aliens to this country and potential enemies of this country as are any other aliens in the world. Therefore, there can be no reason now why we should draw any longer a distinction between immigration into this country from Ireland and immigration from other alien countries. If we took steps by law to require visas for Irish citizens coming into this country from Southern Ireland we should have exactly the same control over Irish citizens coming here as we have over other aliens coming to this country. That would be putting them exactly in the same position as the citizens of other countries, and would be dealing with the problems on exactly the same line as it is dealt with in all our great Dominions if Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It would put all these questions of registration and deportation on all-fours with the treatment dealt out in this country to those who are not fortunate enough to have been born here.
I deplore that any action of this sort should be necessary. It is necessary only because there is danger from these immigrants; and, now that there is danger do not let us forget that we are taking these steps rightly against this new form of civil war for the safety of the country and because war is being carried on against our institutions by the physical force party of the Fascist world. The Home Office have been six months making up their mind to take these steps. The matter began when 2,000 sticks of gelignite were stolen at Falkirk. There has been another case since. I want to know what steps were taken to find those people; whether anybody has been prosecuted; and how far was that theft done by the I.R.A. or by people paid by the I.R.A.? You are dealing here with a body which is intangible, of which there are no limits. Next I should like to know how many people are in gaol for having taken part in these outrages, and how many of them come under this category of having been here as residents for less than 20 years. Do they all come under that category, or is there a large number

of I.R.A. people here who have been here for 20 years and more, and will be outside the scope of this Bill?
According to an answer I received the other day, we have the names of the 800 I.R.A. people who went from Liverpool under O'Duffy to fight in Spain. It will be observed that the trouble here and in Northern Ireland only started after these Franco veterans had returned from Spain to their native country. We have their names. How many of those people are now in gaol as perpetrators of these outrages? How many are now in our Army? It is necessary that we should realise that this is not isolated action against Great Britain, but is a part of the whole Fascist movement against liberty, democracy and freedom. The Home Secretary said today that he had evidence that the I.R.A. were financed from a foreign country, and I think we may guess what that foreign country is. The same violence has been going on in Palestine, financed in the same way, directed against this country. We have tolerated, with a passivity which would have been impossible had any other Government but the present Government been in power, outrages in this country actuated by the same spirit, directed by the same force and paid for by the same money. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill; I wish it were a stronger Bill. I wish it would put a stop to these outrages; I wish that the right hon. Gentleman and the House would realise that this is only one phase of a war which has been going on for three years, and may well go on for many years more—a war between those who believe in force, in violence, in the power of evil, and those who believe in liberty and democracy.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am not going to follow my right hon. and gallant Friend along the line that he has taken. The whole House knows how intensely sincere he is, and how deep is his feeling. I want to join with Members who have preceded me in saying that I believe that in every quarter of the House there is nothing but deep regret at this series of outrages on the part of misguided men, whatever their motive may have been. I am sure it is recognised in all quarters of the House that special measures must be taken to prevent further injury to the public good. I feel thankful to the Home


Secretary for having in introducing this altogether exceptional Bill, indicated in measured language that he wanted it to be an act of the whole House, and that he was prepared to consider such suggestions as might be made to him with a view to removing some of the objections that might be felt to the Measure on the ground of danger to the liberty of the subject. He himself has recognised that it is a very serious Measure, even though it be a temporary one and intended only to deal with a very limited class of persons. I would appeal to him, therefore, to consider during the Committee stage either accepting or himself proposing some Amendment which, while in no way defeating the necessary object of the Measure, will secure that it shall not be used in an arbitrary way to the injury of that fundamental liberty which has been alluded to so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot).
It seems to me that, whatever measures are taken, we ought to see that the accused person has the opportunity of knowing the charge that is made against him, and at least the opportunity to prove that he is innocent. That in itself is a departure from the principle of our British law, which is that a man should not have to prove that he is innocent, but that the accuser should have to prove that he is guilty. The general practice in many countries in Europe is that the accused person has to prove his innocence, and the most innocent person may in certain circumstances have great difficulty in proving that he is innocent. Surely it ought to be possible for the Home Secretary to give at least that limited opportunity to the accused person. I want to give just one illustration of the way in which the Bill, as it is framed, might work unjustly. The Home Secretary might have convincing proof that a certain person, whom for convenience we will call Patrick Murphy, is coming to this country in a certain ship with the intention of taking part in some outrage that would involve loss of life. He may have absolute proof of that, and the man may be on the boat; but the man may be wise enough not to travel under the name of Patrick Murphy, and on the same boat there may be a perfectly innocent person whose actual name is Patrick Murphy. He may be at once arrested when the boat arrives, and deported by the next boat, and for the

remaining period of the operation of the Act, if he attempted to land in this country again, he would be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

Mr. Macquisten: He would be sent back to Ireland.

Mr. Harvey: If he tried to come here again, the mere fact that he had the misfortune —

Mr. Macquisten: Ireland would be his native country and there is no shame in sending a man back to his own country. Surely that is not doing him any harm.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. and learned Member is hardly treating the subject in a way that is worthy of the grave issues at stake. I am dealing with the right of an accused person to establish his innocence before an impartial authority. I believe that there ought to be that opportunity. It could be given in a very brief space of time, without in any way endangering the public safety, while the accused person was still under arrest. If that opportunity were given, and if at the same time the accused person were informed of the grounds of the accusation made against him, a grave and fundamental right would be preserved in its essence. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it quite clear that it is his intention, as I believe it to be, that the exceptional powers given in this Bill shall only be used for the preservation of public order and of greater security for public liberty.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I desire to say at the outset that I am in agreement with all other Members who have preceded me in deprecating the acts of violence which have been perpetrated in this country by members of this organisation. At the same time I must confess that, as I listened to the Debate, I began to wonder greatly. When I listened to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I began to wonder whether the Bill was not a Bill brought in by the National Government to repress the enemies of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. That seems to me to be practically the purport of his remarks, and I was astounded to hear it, coming from him. Judging from the various things that he said, the major part of his life has evidently been all


wrong, and in his latter days he seems to have adopted an entirely new viewpoint. Because of his dislike for Mussolini, he would like, apparently, to become a Hitler or a Mussolini in this country and crush out anybody who had a different opinion from himself. I read with great interest the large type at the beginning of the Bill:
To prevent the commission in Great Britain of further acts of violence designed to influence public opinion or Government policy,
and so on. If I could believe that the long Title of the Bill was really practical, I should be an enthusiast for the Bill. I wonder at the modesty of it. I wonder that it does not go on to say:
and to prevent all acts that are wrongful acts.
If a national crisis were in any way on the lines of what is dealt with in this Bill, we should only have to bring in a Bill to prevent any further national crisis. But the unfortunate thing is that, even when an alleged National Government brings in a Bill with such a Title as this, there is no guarantee that the Bill will be in the least effective. The whole difficulty of the situation is that, as has already been pointed out, we cannot persuade people by Acts of Parliament to do absolutely everything that we would like them to do. It presents a wonderful vista of what one might ask the Government to do. One might have a Bill from them to prevent anybody in this country from ever saying or thinking anything different from the members of the present Government, though that would be very difficult, because of the way in which the Government keep whirling about, changing from one thing to another. The public would be in very great difficulties.
As I listened to the Debate, I became all the more convinced that, while the Government are anxious to prevent the commission in Great Britain of further acts of violence, this Measure is not in any way fitted to make that possible. It is simply a Bill to make it possible for the Home Secretary to take action against people in respect of whom he has suspicions that they may commit acts of violence. That is an extraordinary position for the Home Secretary to be in: that if he—advised, I agree, by his Department—has suspicions that certain people are engaged in a conspiracy, he

should be at liberty to subject them to penalties. The Bill does not propose that he should be enabled to take them into court and there prove a case against them, but that if his Department has suspicions about people they may become subject to certain penalties.
We hear much about our liberties in this country. Is anything worse being done in the totalitarian countries than what is proposed in this Bill? This is an absolute negation of justice, and I was very surprised when I heard the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway say that the Opposition were not going to divide against the Bill. I listened to the Home Secretary with very great interest when he dealt with the problem that he has to face. It is true that he has to face the question of how to stop these outrages. He said that there were three ways that had been considered and put aside. There was general satisfaction that he had decided against internment; evidently it was thought that it would look too much like German methods if we went in for internment and concentration camps. But the Government are taking powers here to take steps against people against whom they are unable to prove a case, and I do not think that any Government are entitled to do that. I know that this seems plausible: it seems very desirable that we should have some method of preventing those outrages; but this is not a method of preventing outrages. If it were, we should be able to stop all crime by working on the same methods as those laid down in the Bill. If there was a suspicion about a certain person that would be enough. That person would be locked up, or put out of the country: sent to some desert island. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as the Home Secretary evidently thinks.
He said that if the Government were not to take some such steps and during the Recess we found ourselves engaged in a war, the Home Office would be in a terrible position. We were in a War from 1914 to 1918, and during those years there was a rebellion in Ireland, a great movement in which the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland were united against the Government of this country in their desire to see Ireland a nation once again. Yet we did not have the Government of the day introducing a Bill for the prevention of violence. During


all that period of crisis it was not necessary. I believe that the Government are handling this matter in altogether the wrong way. The way that I would suggest is that which should be used in handling the whole problem of crime: to try to remove the causes of crime, and, having done that, to try to create a machine that will be able to take efficient action against people who can be proved guilty of crime. To act on suspicion is only going to lead to many difficulties for a lot of people. Various hon. Members have pointed to the possibility of anonymous complaints. We have had experience of that in the administration of pensions and of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. In connection with those matters there have been many regrettable instances of ill-speaking people sending anonymous letters about their fellow-men and women. But those are small matters compared with the possibilities created by this Measure.
When I was re-elected to this Parliament some people in Glasgow came to me and spoke about the condition of things in Northern Ireland. I know that I cannot go into those matters here, that I cannot pursue the question of the conduct of affairs in Northern Ireland and the administration of the Special Powers Act there; but I know the tremendous resentment which is felt by those people in Glasgow because of the injustices inflicted on their friends. The same sort of thing is being introduced into this country. Because of a handful of people who are taking this terrorist line, many thousands of other people are going to be subject to the greatest ignominy and hardships. I do not believe that this will be effective in dealing with that small section of people who are carrying on this policy of violence. The Home Secretary has given no evidence that this would be in any way effective in dealing with the problem. He told us about the number of convictions already secured. While there have been many outrages in the country, there have been a tremendous number of convictions in respect of them, so the police are evidently capable of handling the situation with their present powers. If they do want further powers, this House should not give such powers if they are going to be a negation of the liberty that the people of this country have enjoyed for centuries.
There seems to be a tremendous capacity for criticism of what goes on in the totalitarian States, and at the same time a tremendous enthusiasm for following the lines adopted by the totalitarian States. This Bill is thoroughly in the totalitarian tradition, and I hope that the House of Commons will think carefully, and think again, before giving to the Home Secretary powers which will allow him to arrest people on suspicion, put them out of the country on suspicion, put them into prison on suspicion, and keep them in prison on suspicion without being able to prove any case against them. The fact that that has been done in the Colonies and in India is no argument for doing it here. What we should do is to sweep it away from wherever this House of Commons has power—in the Colonies and in India—and to allow the people there to have liberty and justice. If you give them liberty and justice you will not have these outrages.
I am a Socialist, and social democrats have never believed in terroristic methods. Such methods have been against the policy and ideology of social democracy. I see no reason to change my views on that. I have no faith in methods of terrorism. I believe that it is in seeking to develop and press forward the ideal of brotherhood and justice that we shall be able to make progress, and I regret that the Home Secretary, in dealing with terroristic acts, should be adopting the same methods in trying to deal with them. I believe we have to deal with this question in a different way altogether. I would say to some of my hon. Friends that I believe the proper way to deal with it is by inducing the people of Northern Ireland to have a bigger vision and to see the way to peace in the people there having a bigger say in the admiistration of that country.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think I have any great claim to speak on this, because I have been in the House only for the last half hour, but I do not wish to let slip the opportunity of expressing what I most profoundly believe. This Bill is only tinkering with a very great problem indeed, which will not be dealt with by such provisions. As far as the methods are concerned, if the Home Secretary thinks that they are likely to be efficacious the House is bound to give him


these powers, and then to keep a close supervision over him in order to see that they are not abused. But even if you succeed in suppressing these terrorist acts, the way will be open for similar acts on the part of other dissatisfied people. The only remedy, in my belief, is a system of identity cards. I do not see the need for a passport system between this country and Ireland, but I believe that the police will always be hankering after extra powers as long as they cannot identify any particular criminal. I think that the Home Secretary would receive wide support in the country if he introduced legislation along those lines.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that the Home Secretary or the Government can find any complaint with the tone of the Debate this afternoon. Nobody has compared the right hon. Gentleman to a dictator— a Hitler, a Mussolini or a Stalin, and, although we have fault to find with the methods which are proposed to be taken under this Bill, I think I can say that we are all in agreement with the objective at which it aims. It is significant that, under the stress of these terrorist acts, and the threat of war to which the right hon. Gentleman has called our attention, so few hon. Members should have taken part in this Debate, which is of vital importance to the subject. Why are we here? We are the elected representatives of the people, and not one of us would uphold the acts which have taken place, but surely it is our duty to protect the rights and liberties of all those who have sent us here, and yet this afternoon few hon. Members have had courage enough, although they have had plenty of opportunities, to get up and criticise this Bill, which, as hon. and learned Members have told us, is threatening the liberties of the subject in a manner which many of us cannot even foresee at the present moment.
I was considerably surprised to hear the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member of Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) because, listening to him on many occasions, as I have done, I have been convinced as have other hon. Members, that he is ready to enter the lists on every possible occasion in the interests of justice. Why, because Hitler or Musso-

lini or some other dictator has committed acts against Jews, or even Gentiles with which none of us could agree should we be so clouded in our thoughts that we could even commend the actions which the right hon. Gentleman or some successor of his might be tempted to take against people who were not guilty? We have based our whole law in this country on the assumption of the innocence of the individual until he is proved guilty, and, therefore, why should we depart from these principles, as somebody may be tempted to do in the future if this Bill becomes law in the form in which it has been introduced in this House?
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to events which took place on 24th June last when, by the acts of some of these miguided individuals, life and property were endangered. What was almost the effect of these acts on that occasion? A certain individual had to be protected by the police because the crowd were after him when they thought that he was one of the instigators or one of the people who had committed the crime. There is no doubt that on occasions like that all law goes by the board if the mob takes the law into its own hands. What is the effect if the mob takes the law into its own hands? It uses lynch law and even threatens the life of an innocent individual who happens to be running away from the crime. We can all understand the justifiable speed of such an individual in order to get as far away as possible on such an occasion. The forces of law and order are brought in to save the individual from the mob.
There is a certain analogy between that illustration which I have given and the law which we are supposed to protect and which the Government themselves are supposed to enforce. Under this Bill, a man who may not be guilty of any crime except perhaps that of bearing an Irish-sounding name, will be put under suspicion, and if there is sufficient evidence, he will be deported, or he may even be committed to prison in certain circumstances. Are we then to throw away all those functions and customs that we have set up in order to protect the individual until he has been proved guilty? Why is it that we are to do away with the Habeas Corpus Act, as I assume we shall? A threatened individual may not even be put into prison so that


he can be claimed out of prison under the Act. I may not be versed in the law, but I am well versed in the feelings of justice which ought to animate every hon. Member who is sent to this House, and, although I recognise the seriousness of the occasion, there are inherent dangers in this Bill against innocent individuals.
I would quote to the House what happened during the crisis last September. It is taken from the "Star" of to-day. It says that during that crisis the Chief Constable of Hull banned some political meetings on the score that a state of emergency existed, though no such state of emergency had been declared under the 1920 Act. If that sort of thing can happen in a period of crisis, as it did last September, what is likely to happen when the public nerves are on edge and all sense of reasoning is perhaps lost, and when, merely because somebody says that somebody with an Irish-sounding name is harbouring somebody else he may be a possible criminal and can be proceeded against? I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will act with all circumspection, and that if individual cases come under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, they will be dealt with very carefully, but it may be that in the times through which we are passing the right hon. Gentleman himself may not be able to deal with every individual case. What are we going to do? Are we going to hand the trial of these persons over to civil servants? Surely, that is not our purpose.
I may say, in passing, that I have found the right hon. Gentleman quite sympathetic in the administration of the law. I remember the sympathetic hearing that he gave to some of us when we pleaded for the people who had been tried by a court of law and convicted during the Harworth disputes. On that occasion I had every reason to be satisfied with the sympathetic attitude that the right hon. Gentleman adopted towards us and those who had been convicted. I have not the least doubt that that attitude would be adopted in any cases which were brought to his attention, but I am afraid that men will be condemned without even the right hon. Gentleman himself being able to investigate thoroughly every case which is brought to the attention of his Department.
I have been impelled to rise because I am not able to take too complacent a

view even in this matter, where the safety of individual life may be in danger, and I wish to record my protest at the apparently easy way in which this Bill is about to pass its Second Reading in this House. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take our attitude this afternoon in not going to a Division as meaning that we are prepared to give him a blank cheque even in matters of this nature, because I can assure him that many of us—I would 0say that all of us at any rate on this side of the House —are not prepared to surrender without protest our right to consider Measures like this on their merits.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: Nearly all hon. Members— and I have heard all the speeches but one— have prefaced their remarks by condemning these outrages. Most of the people I have heard condemning them appeared almost to be taking part in a rake's progress. When I recall the records and careers of certain Members of this House, I do not always find that they have dissociated themselves from forms of violence. I remember certain hon. Members opposite actively associating themselves with a movement of a far more aggressive character with regard to Northern Ireland, and a movement which, if it had been allowed to develop, would have involved far greater consequences than that which we are now discussing. In those days I was working in a shipyard in Northern Ireland, and I saw how men were being drilled and supplied with uniforms and guns Weapons were actually being imported.

Sir R. Ross:: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Shall I be in order in following the hon. Member along this particular line as regards Irish politics, because it will be quite a pleasure for me to do so?

Mr. Speaker: It appears to me that the hon. Member is only referring to Irish politics in general.

Mr. Buchanan: I am only illustrating the attitude of certain hon. Members, and I am not so sure whether the present Home Secretary was not of that opinion. They made political enemies out of that kind of thing. In those days I saw Members opposite associating themselves with such a movement. At that time I happened to be on neither side; I was neither a good Nationalist, nor a good


Orangeman, and in consequence I fell between both sides. I look at hon. Members who have come to this House, and I see them standing aghast at this sort of thing. Who is to blame for the Irish Republican movement? The people who are most to blame to-day are those who talked of success by force at that time. It is useless for them to come to this House and talk pious humbug in the way they have done. Even on this side of the House I am not altogether taken with the view that all unconstitutional movements must be vicious. Some of us here have been associated with unconstitutional movements, such as the General Strike, which, if it had continued, would have had serious effects on the community.

Mr. Bellenger: Not terrorist acts, surely?

Mr. Buchanan: If such movements are successful they must affect the community; there are other ways besides shooting which may cause injury. There is, for instance, the prevention of food supplies. When I hear people advancing these arguments here to-day I cannot feel the same kind of indignation. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that foreign money is behind this movement, and asked not to be pressed for details. The Leader of the Opposition says, "I do not believe anything else which this Government says, but I am inclined to believe that." I remember the agitation in Northern Ireland during the War years, when it was said that German money was behind it, but I always took the view that whether foreign money was behind it or not, a great many of the people took that action apart from any foreign influence because they thought that it was right action.
During the War years some of us on the Clyde took an opposite view about the War. What was said about us? German gold; German money. What was said even during the General Strike? Bolshevist money and Bolshevist influence. To-day it is foreign money. In my view there never was a matter to which it was so easy to give an answer. I have always been a moderate in politics from nature. I think that nature constitutes you in a certain way, and while you may try to be a rebel, if nature has not constituted you that way you

will never succeed in being one. I have a list of the men who have been in prison. They number something like 38 up to the last figures I have got, and there are one or two subsequently released in Scotland owing to an Appeal Court decision. Their sentences vary from 18 months to 20 years and the average is nine years. Will any man in this House tell me that for foreign gold you can get a man to do 20 years or even nine years? These men are not bribed by foreign gold. The problem would be easy if they were. The problem is a far more serious one. It is because they are not foreign gold people that you have a problem like this. I know people who are bribed by foreign gold and I know that they would think that 20 years was a sentence sufficient to intimidate anybody.

Mr. G. Nicholson: Is it not possible that the organisation behind these men may be influenced by foreign gold and that the organisation may get hold of perfectly good and sincere fanatics who are not influenced by the foreign gold?

Mr. Buchanan: I have met one or two of those men and frankly I do not think that is so. Their problem is not that they are influenced by gold but that they look upon this in the same way as a man looks upon religion. Take the case of the Roman Catholic faith. I know people holding that faith who, if it were interfered with to-morrow, would go to the scaffold rather than suffer interference. Gaol and anything like that holds no terror for them. These people connected with the Irish movement hold their movement in the same way as religion. It is a deep inward feeling. There is no use a man going down to them as I have done and saying "Try the Labour movement. Come and organise your fellows in Britain and try to get the Irish problem settled in a constitutional way." They do not see it. They answer me quite simply." What are you talking about? Surely other people were successful in defeating a free Ireland by force. The whole history of our movement has been that, and we reply to-day that we have no chance in the constitutional way." That is the problem, a deep sincere movement of men who are not of the criminal class. Let any man who knows the criminal community watch a judge sentencing a man just escaped from a charge of murder and getting 15 or 20


years. Watch him when he goes to gaol. His face from red becomes yellow. The dread and the hate are there. But watch the young Irish republican He may be 30 years of age but he goes shouting; he goes thinking that he is a martyr, and glorying.
My criticism of this Bill is not only that which others make, but that all your repression and gaoling and deportation will never solve a problem like this. You have to see what causes the problem, and apply your mind to solving the reason. I could, I think, riddle many of the provisions of this Measure. The hon. Gentleman who interrupted me referred to the heads of this organisation. One of the reasons why I feel so terribly against this Measure is that neither this Government nor any other will get the heads. You will never get them. What happened in the General Strike? The Government, which was more or less the same Conservative Government with one or two sundry changes, prosecuted and gaoled men, but the leaders were never gaoled. They caught two or three simpletons. The Home Secretary had no right to liken the men in this Bill to aliens. This is far worse. He and I have discussed the question of aliens time and again. When you send an alien out of this country he has some other country to which to go. This Bill is going to deport not aliens, but citizens of this country. A man born in this country is a British citizen. A man who may have Russian parentage is British if he is born here. He may commit an offence against the law and the Home Secretary has no power to deport. Here the Home Secretary is going to say to a British citizen that he will put him on a ship and deport him, although he has no country to go to. Where is he to go? In each country he is an alien.
The Home Secretary is taking far wider powers than are in the Aliens Act. If I was the master of the ship on which the man is to go I would think twice about the fare, especially if the man were as bad as is said. The only place to which he can go is Ireland. In Canada they reject people if they are poor and may become a charge on public funds. If you are like that Canada "bumps" you. Mr. De Valera says "I am not having them either." Where is a man to go to? Back here he must come. People say, "This Bill does not propose the concen-

tration camp." This Bill does propose the concentration camp, because back that man comes and remains in gaol, or he appears before a judge and can be kept for five years not because he has committed any crime but because he cannot get any other country to go to.
I represent in this House a population of mixed people. I have an Irish and a Jewish population and a large population which sometimes does not know whether it is Jewish or Irish. I do not say that jocularly, but what I mean is that they would say they have no decided views on these matters. One of the problems in the Irish or the Jewish population is a constant feeling, when an Irishman or a Jew is working, that another ought to be in his place. I am not criticising that view because an unemployed man has a terrible feeling about his need for a job. Under this Bill what will happen is that every man who is Irish and working will be liable to be informed against, not because he has done anything wrong, but because he is thought to have taken the job of somebody else. Who, having represented a Glasgow seat, has not received letters from unemployed complaining that Irish are working? What will happen under this Bill is that a letter will go into the Procurator Fiscal saying, "This Irishman is associated with the Irish movement. We know." Immediately action is taken, although it may well be that when the matter reaches the Home Secretary he, knowing what Parliament is and knowing that he cannot justify the matter, liberates the man. But the fact that the man has been arrested means that his job has gone for ever. He is finished.
I remember the time when the Home Office deported men and put them on ships in the Clyde without a warrant of arrest and "bumped" them back. I was sitting along there, and we in this House raised the matter. When action was taken in the Court of Session in Scotland it was found that the great bulk of the men they had put on the ships had little or no connection with that movement which was upsetting Britain. In one case in my division a man had no connection at all with it. He was an innocent platelayer who went to his work morning, noon and night. He happened to have a wife who was an astute and


clever woman and she had some association with the movement. When the police came they left the wife and arrested the man, and he was suffering and kept in prison and deported for a crime of which he was as innocent as I was myself The Home Secretary would have liberated him no doubt, but by the time he was liberated his job and his future would have gone.
I do not think this Bill will succeed in doing what the Home Secretary expects. If I thought it would I would not be so unhappy to-day. The men you are dealing with to-day do not fear the casual deportation or even the five years in prison. They are men who, for good or ill, will not be afraid. The Government must try to get back to some other approach to the Irish issue. I do not feel sympathy for the men who commit crimes, but I feel sometimes that they have injured other Irishmen who are innocent. I have seen a letter from a Conservative Member of Parliament who sits, I think, for Bolton, which states that one of the difficulties to-day is that since this agitation an Irishman can hardly get a job. That is true, and I feel that in this House we have raised a prejudice against the Irish. I find the Irish community in the main— when I speak of the Irish community I mean not only those from Southern Ireland but from Northern Ireland as well— a decent lot of people. The Southern Irish are a decent lot of people, capable of the ordinary decencies of life. I have lived with them and worked with them and I know them well in the city of Glasgow, and I view this Bill with a great deal of alarm because I think that, far from settling the problem, it will give rise to more acute feelings. I can imagine what will be the feelings in my own division. We have the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) wanting to keep out people from Southern Ireland, while at the same time he is demanding that more refugees should come into the country— more foreigners to come in, more Irish to be kept out. In that way there lies the solution of no problem but rather an intensification of the problems we have already.
For my own part I would have divided against this Bill, not because I do not think the Government are entitled to protect themselves against movements which

they feel may challenge their authority, but because I think the Bill will not succeed in doing what they say it will do. If it could succeed, surely the terrible sentences which have been passed would have succeeded. I do not think it will succeed, but even if it does partially succeed it will not mean that the people who are the leaders in the movement will suffer but, as is usually the case, comparatively innocent, simple people will be deported, and at the end, instead of bringing to an end all this racial feeling between man and man we shall intensify it. I wish the Government had turned towards other means of trying to find a solution of this problem before they had introduced a Measure of this kind.

7.19 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: The Home Secretary said that he hoped this would be a Bill of the whole House. Of course, the whole House has sympathy with the purpose for which the Bill is introduced. I would support the Home Secretary if he brought over a squad of G men, if I were certain that he was really going to deal with the perpetrators of these outrages, who are the only people with whom we desire to deal; but I want to be assured on several points. If the Attorney-General, who, I understand, is to reply, wants this Bill to be, in fact, a Bill of the whole House, he must recognise that it is necessary to satisfy us not merely that the Bill is not to be used against people who have no connection with this violence, but that it is not capable of being so used. I wish to ask the Attorney-General two questions which I hope he will consider and answer, but before doing so, I would put the background against which these questions inevitably arise, although I would much have preferred that they had not arisen.
A good many of us on this side of the House do not really think that the present Government are in earnest in a universal desire to oppose Fascism. On the contrary we notice very frequently evidence of a desire on their part or of their supporters almost to envy the powers of the Fascists. We have seen over a period of years one little thing after another inevitably suggesting to us that great numbers of the Government's supporters would be glad to see many Fascist things introduced into this country. We remember the attitude of a great many hon. Members on the benches opposite in the


struggle between Fascism and some other force in Spain. We have noticed, too, that those who have some experience of modern warfare in fighting Fascism are excluded from our armed forces. Let me pass on this hint to anyone who wants to avoid military service in this country, that if he wants to make sure of that, he should tell the sergeant that he is a Communist. Meanwhile, a gentleman who is known to have attended the Mosley meetings and shown his complete sympathy with Fascism and the Fascist leader in this country, is not only in the British Army but has recently been promoted to be assistant adjutant of his regiment. We note all these things.
We notice, also, powers of all kinds being gradually taken away from this House. We have noticed that the police force, under this Government, has been put into the hands and under the control of gentlemen instead of being in the control of men who have been drawn from the working classes and promoted from the ranks. We have seen the police under the control of these gentlemen behaving in ways which, on at least two occasions in the last few years, seem to us to be absolutely astounding, and we have found the Government refusing any sort of inquiry. We have seen all these things happening, and therefore we are entitled—

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. It is a little difficult, Mr. Speaker, to relate the hon. Member's statements with the substance of the Bill. I submit that he is wandering far away from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member is out of order.

Sir R. Acland: I come back to the point at once. For all these reasons, and for other incidents which I could mention, I claim that we are entitled to wonder whether the Government or many supporters of the Government are not quite happy to see this country gradually, and not too gradually, being pushed in the direction of a Fascist power. That being so, if the Government are desirous that this Bill shall be an all-party Bill, it rests upon them to convince us beyond any shadow of doubt that there is nothing in this Bill which can help towards that process. I want to put this question to the Attorney-General. It is a question

of law which, I think, he can answer. Is there anything in this Bill which prevents a policeman from searching my house? Is there anything in this Bill which prevents a policeman from searching the house of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I hope not.[Laughter.]

Sir R. Acland: Hon. Members laugh. I have said that hon. Members opposite are desperately anxious to see this country pass as rapidly as possible to Fascism, and when I ask whether there is anything in this Bill to prevent the police searching the house of the hon. Member for West Fife, the hon. Member opposite says, "I hope not." There is a General Election coming. Suppose in that campaign something relating to Ireland becomes an issue. Suppose there have been explosions and the public nerves are set on edge and the question of Ireland has become one of the issues discussed in the election. Is there anything in this Bill to prevent a policeman from searching my house, perhaps finding there political leaflets aimed at criticising the Government and containing some reference to Ireland, confiscating the whole lot and dealing with me under the terms of this Bill? The Attorney-General will say: "That is unbelievable; it simply could not possibly happen." But the Attorney-General must not tell the House that anything is unbelievable or cannot possibly happen. If during the passage of the Official Secrets Act through this House anybody had asked whether that Bill might conceivably be used in a way to suggest, rightly or wrongly, that a Member of this House would be brought face to face with its provisions, the reply would have been that it was unbelievable; yet we have seen it happen.
Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General to be very careful and to give a most serious answer as to whether there is anything in black and white in this Bill which would prevent my house or the house of any other hon. Member from being searched if, for instance, a superintendent of police in the district is prepared to say that an emergency exists. If in such circumstances the house was searched, is there any right which we could exercise against the police officer who has searched our house? Is there anything which lies in our power that we can do to get redress?
If the Attorney-General desires that the Bill shall be an all-party Bill, he will have to show me in black and white whether it is legally impossible for a police officer to search my house, or he will have to show me where in this Bill I shall have my right of redress against the police officer who does search it. That is a reasonable question, and I shall be interested to know what is the answer.
May I make a suggestion to the Home Secretary? He does not like any hon. Member to express a suspicion that he or others associated with him are trying to move towards Fascism. No doubt he will say that I am absolutely wrong to make a suggestion of that kind. Will he consider doing something to convince me that I am wrong? He will agree that this is an unprecedented Bill. There has never been a Bill before which has abolished trial by jury and destroyed the right of every man to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty. It seems almost unbelievable that we are passing this Bill to-day, without a Division, and passing it through all its stages in a couple of days. I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will not reject my suggestion merely on the ground that it is unprecedented. I feel sure that when he considers it impartially he must agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) in his criticism of the remark that the Home Secretary will be answerable in the House of Commons. This idea of answerability on the Floor of the House in connection with these matters is purely imaginary.
Will the Home Secretary consider an alternative under which, I think, the responsibility of Parliament would become a reality, because he would not be entitled to plead the need for secrecy? Would he consider the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to meet from time to time and submit to him any questions in relation to the working of this Bill in order that he may give his answers and be able to give those answers in full without there being any question of it not being in the public interest to disclose the information; then for the Select Committee to report from time to time to this House whether they are satisfied that the Bill is being operated in pursuit of the purposes which the House has in mind, and not to the detriment of any person who should be outside the scope of the

Bill? I submit that proposal to the Home Secretary. I hope he will consider it as a feasible method by which the fears most sincerely entertained by hon. Members may be allayed. If something of that kind were done I think the Bill would have a real chance of being accepted on all sides of the House.

7.33 P.m.

Mr. Benn: We have had a most interesting and useful Debate. One thing has emerged, and that is that there is a general desire to provide the Government with whatever may be necessary in the way of fresh legislation to deal with the present problem. We are not Dividing against the Second Reading of the Bill, because if a Labour Government were in power it would maintain public order just as firmly as a Conservative Government from whatever quarter it might be assailed. But let us see this matter in perspective. The Home Secretary has told us that there are not more than 100 men whom the police suspect of being mixed up in these acts of violence, and whom they want to get rid of. On the basis of that narrow problem the Government are proposing a Bill which, as the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) has said, makes a great inroad on the liberties of the people. May I remind the Home Secretary that in the time of his predecessors when the Fenians were bombing this House itself, when an inspector had his leg shot, they did not ask for such powers as are contained in this Bill. I rather fancy that the Explosives Act was passed at that time, but no Government, Conservative or Liberal, in the days when the Fenians tried to blow up Clerkenwell gaol, and made an attempt on this building itself, were prepared to ask for such powers as these to be put into the hands of the Executive.
As far as I remember, I do not think that even under D.O.R.A. any such powers are given without the right of appeal. We have been told by an hon. Member for Ulster that appeal exists under their Civil Powers Act, and I know that appeal exists under the Offences against the State Act in Eire. This is panic legislation, and I say this, which I think will be confirmed by all Members who have had a long experience of this House, that when this House is in a hurry and deeply moved, when it is unanimous, this House is nearly always wrong. I particularly warn back benchers


to remember that when you get agreement between the two Front Benches there is always something suspicious. Several examples spring to my mind. There was the Ecclesiastical Tithes Act, passed in a hurry, and never operated, and the Public Meetings Act, passed in a hurry and never operated. The happenings of last September are not looked back upon with any very great pride by any of us, and I remember how we stood up and cheered the man who brought to the House the Treaty of Versailles, which was to end war and make the world safe for democracy.
It is perfectly true that this small group has no support in Ireland. It has no support among the Irish in this country, and Mr. de Valera has said quite plainly that he denies utterly the right of this small group of people to speak on the partition issue. Despite that, it is the fact that, while the courts are quite right to treat the persons who are brought before them on the charges, and rule out from their consideration anything that the men in the dock say about their political convictions, it remains true that the whole of this has behind it a political background. It is the problem of a minority. Mr. de Valera, if he wishes for a United Ireland, must make terms with the Protestant majority in the north, and the Protestant majority in the north must treat fairly the Catholic minority in Fermanagh and Tyrone. We have to consider the Protestant majority in the north and the Catholic minority in Fermanagh and Tyrone. This is a problem of great Imperial interest. As the world passes into the twilight we need friends, and a friendly Ireland will be achieved only by some gesture which will recognise the essential unity of Ireland.

Sir R. Ross: Nonsense.

Mr. Benn: That is my opinion, and I do not suppose that the hon. Member will agree with me.
Let me say a word about the circumstances as recounted by the Home Secretary. He did not start as early as I should have liked. In the first place, there were conversations in London between Mr. de Valera and the Government, and a very creditable agreement was reached which reflected great credit on the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but which did leave out the partition

issue. Shortly afterwards, in November, this group of conspirators announced that they proposed to attempt to deal with that issue by force. They started in Northern Ireland, and they carried out outrages on the border, blowing up customs houses, and so on. Then they transferred their activities, after sending a threatening letter to Lord Halifax in January, to London and this country. And then the police got to work. I should like to join with those who have paid a tribute to the work of the police. I am not going into the question of personal courage— I mean in the matter of efficiency.
I do not know how many outrages have been committed. The Home Secretary said that there were about 100, and he told us that there have been 66 convictions. I have read the accounts of most of these cases, and it must be with something of pride at British justice that one has read these accounts, although I must say that, in my opinion, excessively severe sentences of 20 years are not suitable for offences of this kind. I hope the House will forgive me if some of my observations are unpalatable, but an unwelcome word spoken timeously often renders a public service. In one or two cases the judge, finding that they had no legal aid, gave them legal aid, and the prosecuting counsel in one case said: "If there is the least doubt in this case I do not propose to press the case." In two other cases, those of Charles and Thomas Macarthy, the Attorney-General who was prosecuting said that, having heard the evidence of the prisoners, he asked the court not to convict. There was the startling case of Wharton who was brought before Mr. Justice Humphreys. The police case was made against the man, and Mr. Justice Humphreys delivered himself of some strong language, which I will read:
You are a rebel against all constituted authority. You were a member of that gang which committed murders of British officers and others up to 1922. There was then constituted a different government in Ireland. You rebelled against that and fought against that and gloried in the letter which I have been reading. You have stated in a letter what, I have no doubt, is perfectly true, that the only reason you came to England was because you could get better wages here; and I have no reason to doubt what you have said in the letter was true— that you hate the English and that it was a pain and grief to you that, living in England, you had to listen to your children singing ' God save the King.' You are a hypocrite, and, in my view, you are


the worst and most dangerous of the gang that is now before me.
He then sentenced Wharton to 10 years penal servitude. That man appealed to the Court of Appeal, and his conviction was quashed, a conviction which had been described in those terms. That is a glorious thing, something to be proud of in these days of concentration camps. The Lord Chancellor was perfectly right to boast of this case. He said:
They might remind themselves with heartfelt gratitude that they lived under the domination of law. Indeed our true liberties could not be interfered with except by due processes of law.
I want to put this point to the Home Secretary. In every one of these cases the police were convinced that the men were guilty, otherwise they would not have brought the charge. What would have happened if the papers of these men, some of whom were acquitted, had come before the Home Secretary? Of course, he would have made an Order: he must make an Order. But in the case of Charles and Thomas Macarthy the Attorney-General said that, having heard their evidence, he would withdraw the charge against them. That is not what happens in the case of the Home Secretary. He will not hear the evidence at all. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to examine the persons who give evidence against these people? Will he be able to know the names of the informants who lay the information? The right hon. Gentleman has said that the sources of information could not be disclosed, because to disclose them would cause them to dry up. Let me recall to the memory of hon. Members the case of the Zinovieff Letter. Certain Members of the House who were investigating the authenticity of that letter came up against a blank wall because they could not be told the names of the people who had revealed the information, on the ground that to do so would be to dry up those sources of information. In that case, is it not true to say that innocent men will suffer? We are not concerned with the terrorists: frame charges, frame a new offence, do what you please, but give them a trial. We are concerned with the innocent people. If you do, as you undoubtedly will, deport perfectly innocent people, then your quarrel will not be with the Irish Republican Army; the field of quarrel will

spread, and you will have a quarrel with Ireland, and you may even stir again those deep waters, now stilled, of Irish-American hatred. Those are things which the Cabinet should consider. The police do not consider them. The police consider the easiest way of getting a man charged, but the Cabinet should consider the broader background which I have been trying to sketch.
What is the defence made by the Home Secretary? He says that the penalty is very mild. There is prohibition, deportation, registration. But it is no comfort to an innocent man who has been punished to be told that a guilty man has been punished very mildly. That does not help the situation. Personally, I think that the punishment of deportation is very apt in the case of an Irishman who is engaged here in acts of terrorism. Obviously, it is the neatest way of dealing with the charge if you know, and if you can prove, that the man is guilty; but if that is applied more widely you get into a very different field. It has been said many times in the Debate that the Home Secretary is obsessed with the notion that he is applying to British citizens what he can already apply to aliens; but just as we can forbid aliens to come here, so we can bid aliens to go away. Is British citizenship so light a thing that it can be taken away by the Home Secretary's signature on a piece of paper? That is what is to be done. The right hon. Gentleman says that he merely puts the men in the position of aliens, desirable or undesirable. He says that he is taking, for the first time, power to prohibit a British citizen from landing on these shores. He does that on the advice of the police— for what other advice has he? He will not have a judge. He says that a judge would be either a rubber stamp or a nuisance. Therefore, he has to take the advice of the police. Let me give a concrete illustration. Suppose that at the time of the Irish civil war, Archbishop Mannix had asked permission to come from Australia in order to address meetings in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that, under powers of this sort, the police would not have advised him to prohibit the entry of His Eminence into this country?

Sir S. Hoare: I very much doubt it.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will have cases put before him for prohibition, and the entire responsibility will have to be borne by him. There is the penalty of exile. I understand it may be exile for life. As long as the Act of Parliament exists, the Home Secretary will have power to make an Order, and it may be an Order of unlimited duration. I hope the Attorney-General will clear up that matter. That is the position with regard to persons who have resided in this country for less than 20 years. But in the case of all of us, the Home Secretary has the right to require registration; that is to say, if he is satisfied in various ways, he can make an Order to require any Member of the House— for example, my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) or myseif— to have his ringer prints taken and to register with the police. This is an enormous invasion of the rights of citizens of this country. Surely, it is totally unnecessary, when dealing with a handful of terrorists, to ask us to wipe out those rights which have existed for ages in this country. I do not join in the congratulations that have been offered to the Home Secretary on his remarks about internment. He said that he was opposed to internment. I notice that the Lobby correspondent of the "Times," who does not write without knowledge, stated:
It may become necessary in certain circumstances to resort to internment, but everything possible will be done to avoid resort to that method.
That is very disquieting. I remember the strong fight that was put up by the Government against military service. Then, suddenly, we were told that circumstances had changed and that it was necessary for us to have compulsory military training. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there are cases where, in fact, the Home Secretary would be driven to intern people. Suppose that an order for deportation was made and the man had nowhere to go. Suppose that, in the case of an Irishman, they would not take him, and he came back on the ship. He would have done his best to obey the order that had been served upon him. Suppose that, first of all, he was sent to prison for two years or five years. What would happen then? Under one Subsection powers are taken to detain a man without proper authority, and in the next Sub-section, it is stated that he

shall be deemed to be in lawful custody.
I want to know whether that means that a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be applied for in such a case? There is the machinery for internment in this Bill, and the Home Secretary's utterances do not reassure me that this is not really the ante-room of the concentration camp. The Home Secretary said that the Act is a temporary one. He said that there is foreign money behind this campaign. Will he allow the Act to lapse in such dangerous times? It will be easy for him to put it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Ulster Act, for instance, was intrdouced in 1922 and was renewed annually, and then, in 1925 or 1928, it was extended for five years, and now it is the permanent law of the land. The Military Training Act is for three years. It is a temporary Act, but the Secretary of State for War, speaking with a cinema-microphone before him, explained that this was a milestone in the history of the British Army. One does not pull up a milestone after three years. Another argument made by the Home Secretary in defence of the Bill is that the Bill is carefully framed to be aimed at one specific offence, and one only. I could make an Amendment of five words in the Bill which would turn the Home Secretary into a Himmler.
Surely, the Home Secretary has enough experience of the ways of the executive to know that if an Act of Parliament exists that can be twisted or turned to serve a purpose, it will be used in that way. For instance, the Dorchester labourers were transported under an Act for suppressing a mutiny at the Nore. Mr. Tom Mann was imprisoned under an Act passed in the year 1360, and we are all familiar with the Official Secrets Act, which has been so turned and perverted from its avowed purpose that even the Government have found it necessary to bring in an amending Bill. The Home Secretary and I both remember— I think with equal distaste— the Bengal and Bombay Ordinances that were passed at the beginning of the nineteenth century for the purpose of deporting troublesome Frenchmen from British India. There is no sort of meaning in the Home Secretary's remark when he says that he can give an assurance that this is so and that is so; no assurances, however well meant and from however sincere quarters, have the least value. The only thing that counts


is the text of the Bill. If we have not learned that from experience, then we have learned nothing at all.
I think this is a Bill which will dishearten the public. We are proud that this is a free country. Our people hold their heads a little higher because they believe they enjoy a measure of freedom, that freedom has not been taken away from us, and that we have not been degraded to the level of people in the dictatorship States. I do not think public opinion will be assisted by giving the Home Secretary power to turn us all into ticket-of-leave men, if he so wishes. I do not think the reputation of our country in the world will be improved by the passage of this Bill. Our ambition is that the name of our country should shine in the world. The reputation of Great Britain is based upon what Great Britain stands for. It is not based only upon the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. It is based on the belief of people that we stand for liberty. I should like to remind the Home Secretary of some words of Burke, who was no revolutionary when he said, speaking of the maintenance of the fame of our country and our leadership in the world:
So long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country the sanctuary of liberty, they will turn towards you. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows in every soil. Freedom they can have from none but you.

7.59 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has every reason to be satisfied with the Debate and the general reception of this Bill—

Mr. Foot: I hope he is not as easily satisfied under the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I have some sympathy with myself because it always seems to me that the person who winds up from this Box, on a Bill which all parties have expressed their intention of not dividing against—[Hon. Members: "No! "]— if not all parties, then the party opposite and the party on the benches below the Gangway opposite— must be careful not to disturb, at any rate, that measure of harmony revealed by those expressions of intention. Behind those general expressions of intention, for which my right hon. Friend is grateful, there have been criticisms and, speaking

for myself and my right hon. Friend, criticisms of a Bill of this kind are expected and are welcome. No one likes a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Gallacher: Then why introduce it?

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Member will listen—

Mr. Gallacher: Why do you not give me a chance?

The Attorney-General: I did not say if the hon. Member would speak: I said if he would listen. I do not propose to touch on some of the very general topics which have been referred to by way of illustration. I propose to restrict what I have to say to the Bill and to the points that have been raised. It requires, of course, a very serious situation to justify my right hon. Friend in asking the House to give him the powers that this Bill asks for. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) complained, I think, that there had not been more speeches made against a Bill which, as he said, affected, or might affect, the homes of the people. I quite agree that the Bill may affect the homes of some people, but I think the vast majority of people in this country— and of hon. Members who have read the Bill are satisfied that it is a good one— feel that the homes of the people are being threatened by the sticks of gelignite in the hands of those who are working this conspiracy, and it is because the homes of the people are being threatened in an unexampled manner that these special powers are being asked for.

Mr. Bellenger: Either I expressed myself a little hazily or the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I do not think I suggested that the Bill would affect the homes of the mass of the people. I used the expression in another connection.

The Attorney-General: I remember that the hon. Member referred to the homes of the people. If he was not referring to the effect of the Bill on them, I apologise. I wish to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, in order to allay apprehensions which have been expressed in some quarters, that he will himself consider every individual case under the Act and will give it individual attention.

Mr. Benn: This is very important.

The Attorney-General: I know what I am going to say. The right hon. Gentleman may want me to say something else, but let me at the moment say what I am intending to say, that my right hon. Friend will give individual attention to each individual case that comes forward under the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Mr. Benn: Will the Home Secretary give us an assurance that, if an application is made by any of the parties on whom he proposes to serve an order, he will personally see those parties?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not give a specific pledge of that kind. Obviously, no Home Secretary could tie himself down in such a way. But I still say that I will look into every case individually.

The Attorney-General: I think it is clear, from every speech to which we have listened, that terrorism as an instrument is repudiated by every party and by every individual in this House. We speak of, and we value, our liberties, and there is nothing more alien to every instinct of a free people than terrorism. This Bill takes away in certain circumstances the ordinary safeguards of liberty, but the safety, not only of property but of lives, is threatened by a conspiracy, and we have had six months' experience of seeking to deal with that conspiracy by the normal methods of the criminal law. Tributes have been paid— I should like to associate myself with them— not only to the courage displayed by the police, but to the efficiency of the police force in dealing with the problem which this conspiracy presents. No one is suggesting that the failure to deal with it by the normal methods open to the police is due to their inefficiency. No one who has followed what has happened could make that suggestion. The Government, therefore, are faced with the fact that, after six months, normal methods are unable to deal with this attack on life and property.
I should like to say a word about the distinction that is drawn, and always rightly drawn, between attacks on property and attacks on life. I think it is worth reminding ourselves that the property which is sought to be attacked, and which, in fact, has been attacked, for the most part is not jewellery, motor cars or private property of well-off people, but an attack on the services which serve every member of the community, and,

therefore, the distinction between life and property which is sometimes drawn is not as great a distinction in importance in this case as it is in some others, because the attacks on property are directed to the necessities and the ordinary supply services which bring to the people of the country water, light, transport, and so forth. That being so, I think it would be very difficult to suggest that a Government, faced with a formidable attack on the people of the country as a whole which ordinary methods have proved inadequate to deal with, which did not ask for the special powers necessary to deal with it, would not be failing in its duty to the people of the country.
So much by way of general preamble as to the case for the principle of the Bill. I will not say more, because the case for the principle of the Bill, or some such Bill, is admitted by the acting Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and the criticisms that have been made have been with regard to the procedure set up under the Bill, and most of the points will, no doubt, be raised at a later stage. My right hon. Friend will, of course, consider all the suggestions that have been made, but there are one or two general remarks that I should like to make, and I will also answer one or two specific questions. The hon. Member for Dundee and the acting Leader of the Opposition referred to the desirability of adhering to the ordinary methods of judicial administration. My right hon. Friend cannot accept that suggestion. It is because judicial proceedings and methods have proved themselves inadequate, because, as my right hon. Friend said, there are men as to whose complicity there can be no real doubt, and about whom you could not satisfy a court by ordinary judicial process, that this Bill is introduced. It was right to enact that a deportation order under the Aliens Act should be an Executive act, and under that Act an order can be made by my right hon. Friend without any right of appeal and without any machinery of judicial process.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the Aliens Act was passed through the House in manuscript, without most Members having seen it at all, on the first day of the War?

The Attorney-General: Successive Governments and successive Oppositions have, as far as I know, raised no objection


to the exercise of that jurisdiction. I accept what the hon. Member says, but the Act has remained on the Statute Book. No one has said that there is abuse of power or that Fascist methods are being employed.

Mr. Buchanan: Under the Aliens Act you do not keep a deportee in gaol if he comes back because he has no country to go to. Here you are going to do something different. The person dealt with here is British, possibly born in Britain, and, therefore, has no place at all to go to.

The Attorney-General: That is rather a different point from that with which I was dealing. Every Dominion has the power to restrict the immigration of and to deport British subjects. They have very wide powers. Those powers, of course, are not exercised, nor will the powers under this Bill be exercised in the manner which the hon. Member opposite seemed to fear. Where a man is to be deported, he will be deported to the country to which he belongs— to which he claims to belong. That is the basis of the Dominions legislation in which in some cases— I do not want to specify them— very wide powers are given to deport people in circumstances much less immediately associated with a conspiracy of violence, than the present circumstances. I think the House can rest assured that these powers, though I agree they are wide, will not be exercised, and would not be exercised, in the way apprehended by the hon. Member opposite. It is impossible in a matter of this kind to draw a hard-and-fast line, or too narrow a line, but the intention of the Bill is to enable my right hon. Friend to have power to send from this country those who are assisting, or, as the hon. Member for Dundee said, those who are sympathisers with this conspiracy, back to the place to which they belong. Having, in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, expressed our view as to the in-appropriateness of the judicial procedure, and our view that this act is, and must remain, an executive act, I would say that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) seemed to minimise what has been referred to as the Parliamentary control over the Minister.

Mr. Foot: May I put one question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point to which we attach great im-

portance? He has ruled out what he has called the normal judicial procedure. Will there be any procedure, or will the Government accept an Amendment setting up any procedure, under which a man against whom it is proposed to make an Order, will have an opportunity of being heard in his own defence, whether by a judicial tribunal presided over by a judge or by any other kind of tribunal?

The Attorney-General: I do not think it is reasonable that I should be pressed, or that my right hon. Friend should be pressed, on those points now. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] Let us see where we are. The principle and aims of the Bill have been accepted— not perhaps by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), but certainly by the hon. Member for Dundee. He and other hon. Members have put forward certain suggestions, and my right hon. Friend is undertaking to consider those suggestions. I do not think it reasonable to expect my right hon. Friend, either by himself or through me, to state at the end of this Debate what suggestions, if any, he finds practicable, or which of the many suggestions that have been made he considers to be the most practicable. He must have time to consider those suggestions.

Mr. Maxton: Surely it is possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the general question which has been addressed to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) did not intimate that he would support the Second Reading of the Bill, though it may have been intimated by others and evidently, to judge from the attitude of the Attorney-General, it is not desirable for the Government to know, in advance, that they are likely to get their legislation through easily. I do not think it is possible for the Home Secretary to tell us now, exactly how he intends to handle this matter, but, can he not before the Second Reading is agreed to, answer the general question? Before I decide on my vote, can I have an assurance that if a man is to be charged in one of these ways, he will be heard; and, furthermore, if one of my constituents is seized under these provisions, that I will be heard?

The Attorney-General: I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the hon. Member would not succeed in making himself heard.

Mr. Maxton: I am not asking about my right to be heard on a public platform or in this Mouse. I do not need to ask anybody for that. If an unemployed man from my constituency were in difficulties about his insurance, the Minister of Labour would hear me along with the man concerned. If some Irishman in my division whom I know to be a perfectly innocent man, is seized under these powers, will he be allowed to state his case to the Home Secretary, and shall I be allowed to appear alongside him and to speak up for him?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give that assurance. I have made certain observations on the general policy of the Bill. We have introduced the Bill in the form which we think is right, and we do not think abuses will take place under it. Various hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have made suggestions of different kinds, and these my right hon. Friend has promised to consider. We shall have a chance to consider them when this Debate has finished, and we shall have a chance of discussing them on Wednesday. But, as I have said, it would be unreasonable to expect in the reply on the Second Reading Debate, definite assurances as to what procedure, if any, can be inserted in the Bill to meet the points which have been raised.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Attorney-General to say that he will consider the matter, or does he rule it out altogether? I am not asking for a definite answer now on the point itself, but will he consider it?

The Attorney-General: I have said that my right hon. Friend will consider every suggestion that has been made, but at this stage I could not be expected to give a definite assurance as to what procedure will or will not be adopted, and I hope the House will not consider that an unreasonable attitude on my part. I was asked a further question by the hon. Member for Dundee in regard to Clauses 1 and 4. He asked whether there could be an unlimited detention without the right of applying for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Clause 4, Sub-section (1) gives leave to arrest without warrant only pending the determination of the question whether the person so arrested has committed an offence under the Act. Under the Clause as it stands, if there was a

demand made to detain such a person unreasonably long, he could apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

Mr. Pritt: If a man was detained for a fortnight and then applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and the Home Secretary swore an affidavit that the question was not yet determined, what would be the position?

The Attorney-General: Clause 4 (1) gives power to arrest a person who is suspected of having committed an offence under the Act, and to detain him pending determination of the question as to his identity. There is no power of unlimited detention, but my right hon. Friend will consider whether a definite period could not be inserted in the Clause.

Mr. Pritt: I asked whether, if a man were detained for a fortnight and applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and the Home Secretary swore an affidavit that the question was not yet determined, the man would have the slightest chance of getting out.

The Attorney-General: He would have to satisfy the court that the detention was justified. In Sub-section (2) the words "in lawful custody" do not prevent a writ of habeas corpus being applied for. The hon. Member for Dundee referred to the search warrant Clause. The precedent for that was the Explosive Substances Act, and my right hon. Friend dealt with the reasons for putting in that provision. When you are dealing with a conspiracy of this kind, organised with the skill with which this has been organised, where every possible step has been taken to see that there is no suspicious documents or substances on premises occupied by suspected people, then if you want to stop them, you have to take special powers. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) asked a specific question whether there was anything in the Bill that prevented a policeman searching his house. I will take the question to myself, and ask whether there is anything which prevents a policeman searching my house. The answer is "No, if the conditions of the Bill are satisfied." The circumstances in which a search warrant can be issued by a justice of the peace are laid down in Clause 4, Sub-section (3), and in Sub-section (4) it is provided that where a police officer of


not lower rank than that of superintendent thinks there is a case of great emergency, he can issue a search warrant in similar circumstances, if he is satisfied that the person in question is concerned in the preparation of acts of violence.

Sir R. Acland: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the Bill providing that he or I should have no right of redress whatever, even if we were in a position to prove up to the hilt that that police officer had no shred of proof against us?

The Attorney-General: The Sub-section says:
Where it appears to an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of superintendent that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interest of the State immediate action is necessary.…
I am prepared to take the risk of that. Both the hon. Member and myself have, ever since 1883 run the risk of having our houses searched for explosive substances without any greater safeguard than this; we have slept in our beds happily, and I believe that we shall continue to sleep in our beds just as happily after this Clause is passed. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in a speech which covered a wide ground and in which he attempted to deal with the historical background of this Measure, said that this Bill, if it passed, would embitter that racial feeling which he and, I am sure, everybody else would like to see abolished or reconciled. I believe, on the contrary, that there is nothing which would more embitter the feeling in this country against one part of the country than a further continuance of these crimes and a failure by the Government to do their best to stop them.

Mr. Pritt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman help me on one point? The Bill enables the Home Secretary to make an expulsion order in certain circumstances, and when the Act, if it becomes an Act, expires in two years' time, such an expulsion order will remain in force and the man's exile will continue with the further difficulty that after two years Sub-section (6) of Clause I will have lapsed, and so the Home Secretary could not revoke the order even if he wanted to.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in connec-

tion with the question of general arrest, the Home Secretary would have personal responsibility, but I would point out that we have no control here in this House over a police superintendent, in the sense that he is responsible to the local authority that employs him. I was going to ask whether the House should not in some way, through the Home Secretary, at least have the right to criticise a superintendent of police in a case where a warrant may have been wrongfully issued.

The Attorney-General: I must not be too specific. Although I agree with what the hon. Member said about the general position of the county police being responsible to the local authority, I do not think that, if there was a grave case of abuse under this Section, there would be any real difficulty about raising such a matter here.

Commander Locker-Lampson: I should like to ask whether hon. Members, are not greatly exaggerating the position, and whether all that this Bill is doing is merely to return people from a country they hate to a country they love.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: After listening to the exceptionally able speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) I could not understand why we were not dividing against this Bill, and after listening to the appalling explanation of the Attorney-General I shall be astonished if we do not divide against it. I was one of those who had a very close association with the leaders of the I.R.A. during the civil war in Ireland when the I.R.A. was conducting a fight in Ireland for the liberation of Ireland. I have always been for the liberation of Ireland. Most of those leaders with whom I was associated were executed, paid the penalty for their faith with their lives. But when terrorism starts in this country I am opposed to it for certain specific reasons. We on this side of the House have more reason to oppose terrorism than hon. Members opposite, because as a rule when terrorism has been employed it has been initiated and encouraged by the members of the class to which the other side belong. It has never at any time been associated with the working-class movement.
I could give quotations from Marx and Lenin to show the strong opposition that


leaders of the progressive and revolutionary movement always have had to terrorism of this kind. Why? Because it causes suspicion, distrust and demoralisation in the organised ranks of the progressive movement, a very great danger. Not only so, but it provides a pretext for the reactionaries to strengthen reactionary and repressive legislation. Here we have a Bill introduced as a result of this terrorism, a Bill that is a threat to the liberties of the democratic movement of this country. Whatever terror has been used has always been the means of setting back the progressive movement and giving reactionaries the opportunity of using new reactionary powers. Terror is a very undesirable thing, but if we compare the terror that is going on in this country with the threat which this Bill makes to one of the strongest pillars of freedom in this country it will be seen that the Bill is a greater threat than the terror. I wish hon. Members would face up seriously to what it is they are doing and to whom it is they will give these powers. Reference has been made to the Fascist associations of the leaders of the Government and to the opinions that are constantly expressed by Members on the other side of the House. It is fatal to give them powers of this kind. Somebody said that no one could accuse the Home Secretary of being a dictator, but give the Home Secretary a chance to be a dictator and see how he will behave himself. If I were asked to choose between Hitler, Goering and Goebbels and the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary I should refuse to choose. The important thing is not to give them power. It can lead only to evil.
Let hon. Members imagine what can happen if a Bill like this is operating in a situation such as exists to-day. Is it not possible to get the agent provocateur working? There have been suggestions of Nazis being associated with the I.R.A., but the Nazis are associated with Members on the other side, and Members on the other side are associated with Nazis. There is the closest association. They are working to betray this country in the interests of Fascism, because Fascism represents property and privilege. The Attorney-General tries to persuade us that the Bill is introduced because we are concerned about the homes of the people. Does anybody here believe that the

Attorney-General is concerned with the homes of the people? What about the homes of the people down in Stepney? Was it the I.R.A. that was threatening them? No, it was the bailiffs. And did you defend their homes? No, you sent the police down to enable the bailiffs to throw them out. In every part of the country you will find people being turned out of their homes, but not by the I.R.A. In Birmingham, the Prime Minister's own city, there is a continual threat to turn people out of their homes, and they do not get protection from the Home Secretary but from their neighbours, who gather round to defend them. This Bill is not designed to protect the homes of the people. It is a direct blow against the liberties of the people of this country, and with the slightest trouble, and without very much concern, the Home Secretary and those associated with him can easily expand the Measure in other directions.
There has been some reference to the possibility of the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) getting dragged in in connection with this. I should not be surprised, because when I was standing by the chair of the Sergeant-at-Arms this afternoon one of those Front Bench Members there passed the remark "Gallacher ought not to be getting tickets, because of the suspicious characters he might bring in." Of course it was a piece of humour, it was intended as a joke, and I took it as a joke; but the joke would never have been made about anybody else. The hon. Member would never have dreamt of saying that about any other Member, and why about me? Because the suspicion was there in his mind. All the Home Secretary has to have is the same suspicion as one of his colleagues, and off I go. Yes, it is possible.
I will give an instance. When the campaign against the I.R.A. developed about 1921 or 1922 and the deportations took place from Glasgow a friend of mine in Blantyre was informed against. It is so easy to be informed against. Always there have been people who have felt venomous against other people and have been ready to inform against them. It has happened even in factories. There have been instances of it in all periods of history. There are people who are prepared to put in reports about their neighbours just out of sheer venom and hatred. This friend of mine in Blantyre


was informed against and the police went to search his house. He was a very studious lad, and the police found at his home a whole series of notes, and recurring continually in those notes were the sinister letters "I.R.A." So he was hauled up on the strength of being a member of the I.R.A. and became a subject for possible imprisonment or deportation. But he was a student of Marx, and Marx refers to the unemployed army as the "industrial reserve army," and this student of Marx was continually using the initials provided by Marx to refer to the unemployed. Every reference to the unemployed was "I.R.A." That young man had quite a lot to undergo before the authorities were satisfied that he had no connection with the I.R.A. and no evil intent other than to get rid of the parasites in this country and to produce out of the terrible chaos that confronts us a sane and sensible system. Last year, I think it was, the Prime Minister came to this House with an agreement with Eire. Eire is the whole of Ireland. Yes, at the time I drew attention to the fact that in that treaty about the ports this House was actually recognising "Ireland as One and Indivisible." I drew attention to the fact that it was a sham agreement, and that there could be no peace between this country and Ireland while partition lasted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the partition of Ireland, because that is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I am not attempting to discuss that position other than to say that if we are to get a real solution of this problem we have to get at the basic problem. I want to draw attention to what can happen under the Bill. The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) referred to the phraseology of the Bill, which states that the Bill will go out of existence in two years; but the expulsions will still remain; and think of the injustice that can take place as a result of administration of that kind.
I would like to give hon. Members an instance to illustrate this point. I know the captain of a ship, a Russian ship. A long time ago he committed an offence, the offence of being a Bolshevist. For about 12 years he has been sailing between Leningrad and London. A decision was taken 12 years ago not to allow him to

land in London. I ask hon. Members to believe that once that decision is taken it is irrevocable. That sea captain is one of the finest types of men you could want to find anywhere, and although he has been travelling between Leningrad and London for 12 years, every time his boat comes into London he is served with two notices, one to himself as captain of the vessel advising him that this man must not be allowed to leave the ship, and one to himself as the man in question telling him that he must not leave the ship. He has never been allowed to leave that boat. You can go to the Home Secretary about it and you will be told that the Department will consider the matter and will see what can be done, but nothing has ever been done to put right an injustice such as that. For some offence which everybody has forgotten, some propaganda either in this country or elsewhere, he has never to be allowed to put his foot off the ship. He said to me on one occasion: "What would happen if the Russian Government decided that I could not land in Leningrad? What a position I should be in."
That is the sort of thing that can happen under the Bill. That sort of power should never be given to a man, and I ask hon. Members to view this matter in the serious manner in which it should be viewed. Terrorism is a menace to the organisation of the progressive movement, in no matter what country it may be. The only weapon of those who desire progress is organisation. Organisation is what we believe in, but we understand at the same time that reactionary measures taken by a reactionary Government to combat terrorism can be a greater menace to the progressive forces than the terrorism itself, and that is what is happening. The Government are taking advantage of opportunities presented by terrorism in order more and more to introduce the Fascist type of legislation. I ask the House to consider seriously, and to realise for what traditions this country stands in the midst of all the terror and destruction that are going on around us. I ask them to appreciate that and to make a stand against the Bill, and to choose another and better method of dealing with the problem that is before us.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 17.

Division No. 269.]
AYES.
[8.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peake, O.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Petherick, M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Pilkington, R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C, E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Procter, Major H. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Griffith, F, Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Apsley, Lord
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Astor, Viscountess Plymouth, Sutton)
Hambro, A. V.
Remer, J. R.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rowlands, G.


Balniel, Lord
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hepworth, J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Salt, E. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Selley, H. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Shakespeare, G. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Bracken, B.
Hunloke, H. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Sir W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Keeling, E. H,
Snadden, W. McN.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Kellett, Major E. O.
Somerset, T.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Kimball, L.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Spans, W. P.


Cary, R. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Levy, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Little, J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S,)
Loftus, P. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooper, Rt. Hon T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Craven-Ellis, W.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cross, R. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Touche, G. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Train, Sir J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Magnay, T.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denville, Alfred
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Turton, R. H.


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H D R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Markham. S. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mitcheson, Sir G. C.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Montague, F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moore, Lieut. Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Moreing, A. C.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's'.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Errington, E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.
Wise, A. R.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Evans. E. (Univ. of Wales)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Findlay, Sir E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.



Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — 


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and 


Furness, S. N.
Patrick, C. M.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.




NOES


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mainwaring, W. H.



Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J,
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Pritt and Mr. Silverman.


Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Orders of the Day — WAR RISKS INSURANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1. —(Agreements for re-insurance by Board of Trade of certain risks in respect of ships and cargoes.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(2) Nothing in any agreement made in pursuance of this Section shall preclude the Board of Trade from limiting its liabilities under such agreement if at any time the Board deems it expedient in the public interest to do so.
The purpose of this Amendment is to place in the hands of the Board of Trade the power to limit its liability under any agreement arising from the Bill. It will be noted that Clause I provides that the Board of Trade may enter into agreements with certain parties who are concerned with obtaining additional cover from the Board of Trade. When the matter was debated on the Second Reading of the Bill, I ventured to urge upon the President of the Board of Trade that there existed no substantial grounds for assuming that the Government would meet the whole of the liability that was likely to be incurred, and in the course of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman used certain figures which seemed to me to fortify my argument. In dealing with the value of shipping, cargoes and goods, he used the figure of £2,380,000,000—

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): That included commodities insurable under Part II of the Bill, valued at £2,000,000,000, and not merely those insured under Part I.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I will make myself as clear as I can. I said we were dealing with ships, cargoes and goods, and by goods I mean commodities, because we are here dealing with both Part I and Part II on the subject of liability. That is the issue that is before us— not necessarily Clause I, but the general question of liability; and, on the

assessment which the right hon. Gentleman himself placed on the value of ships, cargoes and commodities, he used the figure of £2,380,000,000.

Mr. Stanley: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if he will look at his Amendment he will see that it says:
Nothing in any agreement made in pursuance of this Section shall preclude the Board of Trade,
and so on. Clause I, which we are now discussing, has nothing to do with the insurance of commodities.

Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. If he will only restrain himself for a moment or two, he will see the point towards which I am driving. I am dealing with the general question of liability. I want to set forth our position in that respect in order to fortify my argument in support of this particular Amendment, and, in order to indicate the liability which the Government under this Bill— not necessarily under Part I or under Part II, but under the Bill— may be called upon to accept, I use the figure to which I have just referred and which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the course of the Second Reading Debate. It is perfectly true, as he says, that under Clause r only part of that liability will be thrust upon the State. We are dealing here with ships and cargoes; I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. We are dealing exclusively, under this part of the Bill, with ships and cargoes; for the moment commodities are excluded. For ships and cargoes agreements have to be made. I want the right hon. Gentleman to accept our view that in those agreements there should be inserted the necessary provision to ensure that the State should not be called upon, if the circumstances arise, to accept the whole liability.
It will be noted— this was made apparent in the Second Reading Debate— that there is to be a differentiation in respect of the State liability as between ships and cargoes and general property. I understand that it would be out of order to discuss the liability or cover for general property, but there is to be a differentiation. I would say, in passing, that we know that the Government have promised to set up a committee to inquire into the subject of comprehensive insurance. That committee has not yet met; we have not yet been made


acquainted with its personnel, and it is not clear whether the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading are to be the terms of reference on the committee. For the moment, we are concerned with the differentiation. Certain owners of property are to receive the necessary cover, and the State, in respect of them, is to accept a liability, and, in certain cases, the whole of the liability. Other people, such as householders, are to be excluded.
It appears to me, first, that if there is to be a differentiation one section of property owners ought not to be paid in full, and, secondly, if the Government contemplate introducing proposals at a later stage which will provide a measure of insurance or of compensation for other property owners on a limited scale, this is the time to limit the liability in respect of those property owners—owners of ships and cargoes—with whom we are now dealing. The owners of ships and cargoes are not called upon to pay premiums until the outbreak of hostilities. In the case of goods, there is another provision in respect of registration fees which are to be paid. But there are to be no premiums paid by the owners of ships and cargoes until war breaks out.

Mr. Stanley: The cargo owners pay for the insurance.

Mr. Shinwell: But the State is ready to pay 80 percent. of the cover. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if war breaks out the State does not reinsure? Surely that is the purpose of the Bill. The Government accept 80 percent. of the risk. No premiums are to be paid on that section of insurance until war breaks out. Such premiums as are paid now, in time of peace, are to cover normal risks, not war risks. We may find ourselves in the position that a week, or it may be two weeks, or a month, after war breaks out the Government are called upon to meet the liability incurred, yet very few premiums, if any, will have been paid. No revenue will have passed to the State, and yet the State will be called upon to meet the claims. Moreover, the Government are to be called upon under the scheme to meet the claims in full, and possibly at a very early date after the liability has been incurred. That seems to be an anomaly which ought

to be corrected, particularly in view of the fact that we are not yet advised as to the Government's intention in respect of compensation, either on the basis of premiums paid or without premiums paid to owners of the property. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to what is proposed in the Amendment, namely, that the board shall, if it is deemed expedient in the public interest, limit its liability.
The right hon. Gentleman attempted to assess, on the basis of advice given him by those who are assumed to have expert knowledge, the amount of damage likely to occur. To make such an assessment seems an impossibility. It can be no more than a speculation. If we knew what was going to happen in the next war we should be in a better position to judge the liability and the premiums to be paid, and, indeed, the kind of scheme which would be best calculated to protect the interests of our population. It may be that considerable damage would be done to ships and cargoes as a result of submarine and aerial warfare. In the last War there was serious risk from submarines, but very little from the air. In the next war the assumption is that vessels will encounter risks from both submarine and aerial attacks, and the damage may be very much greater, therefore, than anyone supposes. In view of those circumstances, I suggest that we ought not to agree on the State accepting the whole of the liability. The liability should be limited in such a manner as will enable the State to meet other liabilities which are likely to be incurred as a result of the destruction of property.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I support the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade may think it desirable to take in this additional Sub-section in self-defence. At present vessels are covered against war risks, but they are not covered against King's enemy risks, and a state in which this country might be at war. It is obviously impossible for the President of the Board of Trade or any Member of this Committee to predict with any assurance what amount of damage may be done in view of the new methods of warfare to ships and cargoes with which this Clause specifically deals. It is for that reason that we feel it desirable that there should be some provision made


enabling the Board of Trade to limit its liability under such agreement, if at any time the Board believes that it is expedient in the public interest so to do. My fears do not carry me in the direction of believing that this contingency is very likely to arise. The experience of the last War was that the Board of Trade was very careful to cover itself, and it did so successfully by means of a Measure passed during the War to charge substantial rates of premium in order to raise the requisite fund. These premiums were rated from £percent. to as much as 5 percent. on the total value of the vessels and cargoes per month, so that we had the experience of 60 percent. of the total value of cargoes and of vessels being charged in the course of the year as cover against King's enemy risks during the last War. The result of that from my own personal experience was that many shipowners were driven to reduce the values for which they were insured owing to the very heavy, and, in the judgment of certain people, necessarily heavy, premiums which the Board was charging in this connection.
The next war, should it come, may present an entirely different situation. There may be an extraordinary amount of sinkings and damage due to King's enemy risks, and it seems reasonable that the Board of Trade, under Clause I of this Bill, should, where it can be shown that vessels would by reason of the absence of this reinsurance or this Board of Trade cover, be laid up in our ports, or that the vessels would be for other reasons unable to trade, be under a specific liability. It has no option in the matter, but must offer the 80 percent. cover to assist the operation of the provision under which they are insured for war risks on the ocean to-day where they are operating in certain trades. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has indicated that the liability of the State, under the heading of ships with cargoes, amounts to the colossal sum of £2,380,000,000 sterling. If the State were to be called upon to meet any such liability, it would be necessary for the Board of Trade to have a protective Clause in which it might be assumed that liability had reached sufficient proportions.
I am satisfied that our protective armour will be sufficient to keep the liabilities within reasonable bounds, but it is essential that the Board should have the protection which this Amendment would offer to it. Is there not a possibility, in the event of what might be termed a universal war, that there might come a time when the tides of war substantially receded into perhaps other parts of the globe where perhaps we were not so fully concerned, and yet, as long as that state of warfare prevailed and King's enemy risks were prevalent, the Board of Trade would be called upon to continue the cover unless a protective Subsection such as that which we are now suggesting were adopted? The operation of reinsurance during the last War was a profitable undertaking for the Board, but the Board has no right to conclude that, if another war comes, the same situation will prevail. The Government are apparently assuming that the same situation will prevail or there would have been a protective provision in the Bill. A substantial case has been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham, and by the statement which I have made, and the Board of Trade ought, in the general interests of the State, to accept the Amendment which we have suggested.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment could have moved it in any very great spirit of optimism that I was likely to accept it.

Mr. Shinwell: Why?

Mr. Stanley: For the simple reason that he must realise that the acceptance of the Amendment would, in fact, make nonsense of the Clause and nonsense of the whole scheme under Part I. The whole object of the introduction of this Measure under Part I was in order to give a degree of confidence in pre-emergency times, so that should there be a crisis we should not find, as we did in September, the flow of goods to and from this country drying up, or run the risk of owners not daring to send their ships out in case they should be caught on the high seas in an emergency without adequate cover. The whole point of Clause I is to enable the Government to enter into an agreement which will safeguard the position and which will make it certain that if an


emergency comes owners of ships and cargoes in transit will be adequately covered. All that the Amendment says is that having made this agreement, then the Board of Trade can proceed to break it whenever they like if they consider it is in the public interest so to do. In other words, they would remove any possible basis of confidence which this agreement will give. It is no good telling a man that in case of emergency he will receive this cover and at the same time that the State has taken power to break the agreement at any time they consider it necessary. Acceptance of this Amendment would make complete nonsense of the scheme of Clause 1.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) quite rightly drew attention to the fact that during a protracted war the character of the hostilities might change and, as he said, the Board of Trade would need some escape Clause. I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the escape Clause of the Board of Trade lies in the fact that the agreements into which they enter are subject to denunciation after a period of notice. The draft agreement regarding ships insurance is subject to six months' notice, and the cargo pool scheme subject to three months'. Therefore, without the necessity of anything in the Bill it is possible, by giving notice, to change the agreement if the agreement proves, in the light of existing circumstances, to be unsatisfactory. It seems to me, and must seem to any business man in this House, that that is the way to do it. If the agreement is unsatisfactory, then have provision in the agreement which will enable you to end it and re-negotiate it. But it is a bad principle for this House to adopt, and quite destructive of the whole purpose of the Bill, to pass a Clause enabling the Board of Trade to enter into agreements, and agreements in which they pay premiums —

Mr. Shinwell: When?

Mr. Stanley: They pay them now. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to know the primary provisions in my own Bill. Under the cargo scheme premiums are accruing to the pool now. It is wrong to enter into agreements for which premiums are being paid, and at the same time pass a Clause which will enable the Board of Trade to tear up any agreement they have made.

Mr. S. O. Davies: They can denounce it in three months.

Mr. Stanley: That is a proper agreement. People enter into it and knowing that it can be denounced in three or six months by giving notice, but that is very different from the knowledge that when you have entered into an agreement, the whole object of which is to cover the outbreak of war, then on the day after, when it becomes important, the Board of Trade can say, "I break the agreement and decline to accept any liability at all."

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: He has just stated that these people are paying premiums now for cover. Will he say whether the Government receive any of these premiums now for re-insurance?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly, under the cargo re-insurance scheme. That liability has been accruing since the report was made in April. The accounting period is sometime at the beginning of September but the liability has been accruing since last April.

Mr. Shinwell: I really must have another word to say to the right hon. Gentleman about this. I understand that his purpose is to provide confidence for the owners of ships and cargoes. If this confidence is not provided the shipowners will not use their ships but will lay them up in port. That is his purpose. No confidence, however, is to be provided for property owners, but just for shipowners and cargo owners, otherwise the trade and commerce of the country is to be held up. That is a remarkable situation. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this agreement may be denounced at any time, if the Board of Trade thinks fit, at three months' notice. Six months must elapse before the agreement can lapse and then it is necessary to have three months' notice. If that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and if that is the proviso which he holds in reserve, what is to follow? Surely this must be the consequence of the denunciation: A new agreement is to be brought into operation and that agreement is either ended for the purpose of accepting the whole of the liability or it is ended for the purpose of accepting only part of the liability because the financial position has


undergone a change or because the damage is so excessive as to prevent the State meeting the whole of its liability.
It seems to me that the Board of Trade might avail themselves of the opportunity now. The right hon. Gentleman says that this makes nonsense of the scheme. The scheme already is nonsense because it provides confidence and assurance and a settlement of full claims, at an early date after the damage has been done, to one section of the community, and provides nothing for others, and that is why it is nonsense. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that this makes nonsense of the scheme is quite gratuitous. On the question of premiums the right hon. Gentleman says that from April of this year premiums had been paid into the pool by the owners of ships and cargoes. From that moment money passed into the hands of the Government. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that. If he did not say that, then I must be hard of hearing. Suppose war broke out in September. The amount of premium paid would be insignificant beside the claims that would have to be met if any damage occurred, and yet the Government are to accept the liability on the payment of premiums over a very short period of an amount of which we know nothing at all. We are told that at the end of September, when we reach the end of the accounting period, we shall know what the premiums are. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he talks of the accounting period?

Mr. Stanley: When you are paying premiums you do not pay every day or every month, but at the end of a convenient period you account for the premiums which have accrued during the period. The first period will end in September.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to be at cross purposes. Let me put the position as I see it. I am the owner of a vessel and I belong to an indemnity association. The right hon. Gentleman now says that the payment of premiums is for cargoes and not for ships. I am asking about the payment of premiums for ships. He says that it is only for cargoes and not for ships. I am dealing with Clause I, and until a few minutes ago the idea was that we were dealing with Clause I. Now I understand,

perhaps I am wrong in the assumption, that the premiums are not being put into a pool in the case of vessels. Is that the position? If the right hon. Gentleman is not disposed to listen to my argument, I must proceed to put the argument a little more forcibly. I am a member of an indemnity association, and I want to insure against normal risks— against King's enemy risks the Government propose to re-insure— and I pay my premium. What part of that premium for the extra cover passes into the hands of the Government?

Mr. Stanley: I will explain again. If you are a member of a club you do not pay a premium. It is not carried on on a premium-paying basis. What happens is that when a loss is incurred by a member of the club a call is made to meet it. A premium is not paid in the ordinary course.

Mr. Shinwell: Then there is no premium passing into the hands of the Government in that regard. Now I come to the second case, where premiums are paid. I am a shipowner and I want cover. I go to a marine insurance broker and he undertakes the task and proceeds to take the necessary cover through the medium of an underwriter. That is the ordinary normal method of insurance when premiums are paid, and in that case I presume the Government is providing reinsurance. What part of the premiums paid there are passing into the hands of the Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman say? Who knows most about this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman or myself? I should like to know that. The right hon. Gentleman does not know his Bill himself when he talks about premiums accruing to the Government, and now he says that with respect to ships no premiums accrue to the Government. We ought to have a clear answer. This matter requires to be cleared up. If there is to be re-insurance by the State either for ships or cargo then, clearly, there ought to be a limited liability unless there is a protracted period during which the owners of ships and cargoes pay premiums as a result of which considerable revenue accrues to the State, out of which the liability can be met. If that is not the position in this case, I do think we are entitled to a great deal more information, and therefore I press the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 231.

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[9.42 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, Agnes
Quibelt, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Ammon, C. G.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Baley, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hill., A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Cape T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cooks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilmot, John


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.




NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-col. G. J.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Adams, S. V. T.(Leeds, W.)
Carver, Major W. H.
Furness, S. N.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Channon, H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col, Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Goldie, N. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Critchley, A.
Grimston, R. V.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Balniel, Lord
Cross, R. H.
Hambro, A. V.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hammersley, S. S.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Culverwell, C. T.
Hannah, I. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Denville, Alfred
Harris, Sir P. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Doland, G. F.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bernays, R. H.
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hepworth, J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dunean, J. A. L.
Holdsworth, H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eckersley, P. T,
Holmes, J. S.


Bracken, B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hopkinson, A.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Ellis, Sir G.
Horabin, T. L.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Emery, J. F.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Errington, E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Findlay, Sir E.
Hunloke, H. P.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Foot, D. M.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'st'n)




Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Keeling, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Kellett, Major E. O.
Patrick, CM.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Peake, O.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Spens, W. P.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lees-Jones, J.
Pilkington, R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ponsonby, Col C. E.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Levy, T.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lipson, D. L.
Ramsden, Sir E,
Sutcliffe, H.


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Rankin, Sir R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Little, J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Loftus, P. C.
Remer, J. R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Touche, G. C.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


MeCorquodale, M. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Capt. P.(Isle of Wight)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Rowlands, G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Maitland, Sir Adam
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mander, G. le M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Manningham-Butler, Sir M.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Markham, S. F.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Salt, E. W
White, H. Graham


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Williams, Sir H. C. (Croydon, S.)


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Selley, H. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Moreing, A. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wise, A. R.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Munro, P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
York, C.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Smithers, Sir W.



Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Snadden, W. McN.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Somerset, T.
Major Sir James Edmondson




and Captain McEwen.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2. —(insurance by board of trade of ships and cargoes.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name ofMr. SHINWELL: In page 2, line 32, leave out "may" and insert "shall." In line 36, leave out from "risks" to the end of the paragraph.

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): In regard to the second of these Amendments in the name of the hon. Member I have no trouble or doubt: it is in order, and should be selected. But as to the first Amendment I have not the same confidence. If the hon. Member wishes to press it perhaps he will give me some explanation of it. At the moment I am doubtful as to whether it is within the scope of the Bill.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that the proposal comes within the Title of the Bill. If I may, with respect, draw your attention to the Title, it is:
to make provision for authorising the Board of Trade, in the event of war and in other

circumstances, to undertake the insurance of ships and other goods.
That authorisation seems to be quite definite and, therefore, we propose in the first Amendment that the word "shall" be substituted for the word "may."

The Chairman: The hon. Member is under a slight, but not uncommon misapprehension. It is not a question whether it comes within the Title of the Bill, but whether it comes within the scope of the Bill. I have to consider the Amendment largely in connection with the next Amendment, and it seems to me that a definite proposal that the Board of Trade shall do something which, after all, is not what is intended, may be in my opinion outside the scope of the Bill. Whether an Amendment is or is not within the scope of a Bill may often be a matter of opinion; but in that case the decision rests with the Chair. I will allow the hon. Member to move his Amendment, but subject to my right to decline to put it to the Committee if I come to the conclusion it is not in order.

Mr. Stanley: Would it not be convenient to discuss the two Amendments together?

Mr. Shinwell: I was about to make that suggestion.

The Chairman: If that meets the general assent of the Committee, I am prepared to allow it. But the hon. Member will if he adopts that course do so with my warning to him which in that case will cover his second Amendment also.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
We think it advisable to give the Board of Trade obligatory powers instead of leaving it to their discretion to undertake insurance within certain circumstances. As I understand the Clause, the Board of Trade is to effect the insurance of British ships and the insurance of cargoes when it may appear to them to be beyond what can be provided by private insurance companies. Those who understand the business will readily agree that in time of war, when there is considerable risk and consequent damage involving serious liabilities on those who undertake mutual insurance, it may be necessary for the State to avail itself of the facilities and undertake a task which could not ordinarily be undertaken by a mutual insurance company. I take it that is the purpose of the Clause. We desire the Board of Trade to undertake the obligation without exception of any sort or kind. It seems to me that for the Board of Trade to leave the matter until the insurance market becomes chaotic because of the risks entailed, would be unfair to the taxpayer, who would at some time be called upon to meet the expenditure which is likely to be entailed. It is obvious that if there is a considerable risk, and consequent damage and a heavy liability, the State will not be able to meet the claims entirely out of the premiums that are paid. There must be some State expenditure bearing upon the taxpayers. Consequently, it would be advisable for the Board of Trade to undertake insurance of this kind irrespective of whether there existed adequate and reasonable facilities for the purpose.
There is another reason why the insurance of ships and cargoes should be undertaken as an obligation by the Board of Trade. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I argued that it might happen that, in respect of certain classes of insurance, the mutual insurance companies, the indemnity companies and the like, would

undertake the lesser risk, whereas the State would have to undertake the greater risk, and that a method might be devised by the indemnity associations whereby they accepted risks on a particular trade —I am speaking of a shipping trade or a shipping route, such, for example, as the River Plate trade or the Orient trade —exclusive of any State insurance because they were likely to make a profit by so doing, whereas the greater risk involved in another trade might have to be undertaken by the Board of Trade. Therefore, from the point of view of covering shipowners and cargo owners and from the point of view of the taxpayer, it would be much more advisable if the Board of Trade itself undertook the task of insurance.
Apart from that, I should like to point out that, although the question of damage is a matter of speculation, in the last War, although the re-insurance provided by the State emerged not at the beginning of the War but at a later stage, and was not regarded as satisfactory by the shipowners or even by the Government—I have read some of the questions asked and answers given in Parliament between 1914 and 1918—yet the State contrived to make a profit of £16,000,000 out of the business. If there is a profit, there is no reason why the State should not earn it, particularly as the State must at some time be prepared to undertake the necessary risks. I move this Amendment on the ground that the Board of Trade can easily undertake the task of insurance. The question of machinery is a small matter. The setting up of a State insurance department in London could be undertaken without any difficulty. A State insurance department of the same kind was set up without difficulty during the last War and was carried on very successfully. The same thing could be done in the next war, for the purpose of providing that cover which shipowners and cargo owners regard as necessary.

The Chairman: Having heard the hon. Member move the Amendment, I will not object to put the Amendment to the Committee. But I may tell him that if I had heard the speech before the Debate began I should very possibly have found some good reason for not selecting the Amendment.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: My hon. Friend and I are moving these Amendments because


we feel, as I think is felt in other quarters, that an enterprise of such magnitude and of such vital importance as the insurance of British shipping in time of war is one which ought to be undertaken by the State. This Bill gives to the Board of Trade permissive powers to undertake this business if ordinary private enterprise breaks down and does not function. Until then, the State stands behind the private insurance companies as a re-insurer and, in fact, a guarantor. This seems to me to be the worst form of State intervention. It means that as long as there are profits they will go into private hands, but that as soon as the business becomes unprofitable, it will have to be carried on by the community. Moreover, the more profitable sphere of the business will continue to be done by private enterprise, while the more risky and unprofitable sphere will be left uncovered, so that these permissive powers will have to be operated by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Might it not also be that the underwriters, being honest men, would limit their liabilities and not undertake greater liabilities than they could possibly pay?

Mr. Wilmot: I have no doubt that insurance underwriters are honest people, but the purpose of this Measure is, very properly, to give complete cover to British ships and cargoes in order that they may go about their business without undue fear of the consequences after the outbreak of war. It is quite improper that the community should allow one type of trade to bear a special risk, and it is proper that the State should undertake the insurance. I do not see the relevance of the hon. Member's intervention. The limiting of liability would completely defeat the purpose of the scheme, and therefore, the purpose of the Amendments is to alter the scope of the scheme so that the State would undertake, from the beginning, the whole business of marine insurance against war risks. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that ultimately that is what will happen. The State will have to carry the risk of damage to ships and cargoes in time of war. It would be a much more businesslike way to set up a business corporation and deal with it from the beginning.

10.3 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: It is obvious to those who know anything about insurance that the two hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment have very little grasp of the business. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the British marine insurance market controls at least four-fifths of the world's marine insurance, and that that marine insurance covers not merely the British Mercantile Marine, but a great many foreign vessels as well. In time of war, there is no doubt that neutrals and allies, and not British ships, would be carrying a large proportion of our sup plies, and they would have to be covered. We could not expect the Government to take charge of the insurance of foreign persons' vessels—

Mr. Wilmot: Will not the Government, under this scheme, carry the re-insurance risk on foreign hulks?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: Yes, but they will carry the re-insurance risks from British underwriters. That is a different story.

Mr. Wilmot: If the underwriters default, the Government will have to pay.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: No, not if they default. The Government will get a premium for taking the risk and if the risk eventuates and the claim is made, the Government will have to pay in the same way as the underwriters. This is only a war risk insurance. If hon. Members were logical, they would carry it further and say that marine risks as well as war risks should be carried. During war time it is essential to get cargoes here, and people do not make claims for damage in trifling matters at all. But the great point against the Amendment is that a great many ships are foreign-owned, and it is not in the purview of our Board of Trade to undertake their insurance.

Mr. Shinwell: Why is it that the Board of Trade are asking for powers to undertake the insurance of British and foreign vessels?

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In the case of reinsurance they must do it, but to make a business of it would not be in the interests of the country.

Mr. Shinwell: Clause 2 provides for powers being vested in the Board of


Trade, if they so desire, to
carry on business for all or any of the following purposes"—
the insurance of British ships and also foreign ships against King's enemy and war risks.

10.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): My right hon. Friend could not accept these Amendments because they cut right across the basis of Part I of the Bill, which is that in peace-time the Board of Trade should engage in marine insurance only in so far as the existing machinery of the insurance market is inadequate for that purpose. We certainly do not desire or intend to undertake any unnecessary liabilities. The market is prepared and able at present to take a certain proportion of the war risks and, so long as they are really able to carry those war risks, we certainly do not covet the underwriting of them. Paragraph (a) is simply a breakdown provision, lest by any chance the provisions under Clause I should cease to operate satisfactorily. It is simply a reserve power, and there is really no reason to anticipate that it will ever be required. In the last War the operations of the Mutual War Risks Association carried right on until August, 1917, and they ceased to function then only because the insurable basis had become very much too narrow. They had so few ships to insure, on account of the fact that the Government had requisitioned a very large number, that no proper insurable basis was left for the association.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not intended that in the next war the Government should requisition a larger number of ships?

Mr. Cross: The first paragraph relates to the underwriting of war risks in peace time. It is the next paragraph, (6), which deals with circumstances in war time.

Peace may continue, and we hope it will continue, for an, indefinite period. The effect of the Amendment would be to set up, for dealing with war risks in time of peace, machinery which would go on indefinitely, and would duplicate a machinery which under normal conditions is able to carry these risks without any assistance from the Government whatever. It would, moreover, put an added responsibility on the Board of Trade at a time when it is, of all times, least fitted to undertake a further responsibility. The hon. Member also suggested that the Mutual War Risks Associations might pick and choose the risks which they underwrote. They might thereby keep the better risks to themselves while passing on the worst risks to the Board of Trade. That is not the case. They have to re-insure 80 per cent. of all the King's enemy risks part of the war risks which they underwrite.

The hon. Member also suggested that the Government might charge premiums on war risks on ships in time of peace in place, I understand, of the existing arrangement under which no premiums are chargeable. The purpose of the Government, as is evidenced in this part of the Bill, is not to add any avoidable burden to trade by the charging of premiums. In view of the fact that in the course of last week we gave a Second Reading to a Bill to assist shipping, it would be very undesirable to attempt to put upon shipping an added burden, amounting to some hundreds of thousands a year, which might well have the effect that the Government would be called upon to increase the amount of subsidy to be given in order to pay for these insurance premiums. For these reasons I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word ' may ' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 108.

Division No. 271.]
AYES.
[10.14 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bracken, B.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)


Albery, Sir Irving
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beechman, N. A.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Apsley, Lord
Bernays, R. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Bossom, A. C.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cary, R. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Channon, H.




Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hopkinson, A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Horabin, T. L.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, J. R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Home, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rowlands, G.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Critchley, A.
Keeling, E. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Kellett, Major E. O.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir I.


cross, R. H
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Salt, E. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lees-Jones, J.
Selley, H. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denville, Alfred
Lipson, D. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Doland, G. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Little, J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smithers, Sit W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Duggan, H. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Somerset, T.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Dunglass, Lord
M'Connell, Sir J.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Eckersley, P. T.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Spans. W. P.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mckie, J. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Ellison, Capt. G. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Emery, J. F.
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Errington, E.
Mander, G. le M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Markham, S. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Findlay, Sir E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Foot, D. M.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Furness, S. N.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Touch., G. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M,
Moreing, A. C.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Turton, R. H.


Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Greens, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
White, H. Graham


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hambro, A. V.
Patrick, C. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harris, Sir P. A.
Petherick, M.
Wise, A. R.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
York, C.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.



Hepworth, J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holdsworth, H.
Rankin, Sir R.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Holmes, J. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Buchan-Hepburn.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Charleton, H. C.
Frankel, D.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Gardner, B. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Cooks, F. S.
Garro Jones, G. M


Adamson, W. M.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Ammon, C. G.
Daggar, G
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dalton, H.
Grenfell, D. R.


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Baley, J.
Day, H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bellenger, F. J.
Dobbie, W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hayday, A.


Benson, G.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bevan, A.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Cape, T.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hills, A. (Pontefract







Hopkin, D.
Montague F.
Sorenson, R. W.


Jagger, J
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Stephen, C.


John, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-lc-Sp'ng)


Johnston, Rt. Hen. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kirby, B. V.
Parker, J.
Thurtle, E.


Lansbury, Rt. Hen. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tinker, J. J.


Lathan, G.
Poole, C. C.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, J. J.
Pritt, D. N.
Walkden, A. G.


Lee, F.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watkins, F. C.


Leslie, J. R.
Ridley, G.
Watson W. McL.


Logan, D. G.
Riley, B.
Westwood, J.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


McGhee, H. G.
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


MacLaren, A.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, T. (Den Valley)


Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
Wilmot, John


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles
Silkin, L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Silverman, S. S.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Mathers, G.
Simpson, F. B.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Maxton, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)



Messer, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Milner, Major J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out "the premises to which they are consigned," and to insert "their destination."
This is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. It is intended to cover goods in transit between the ship and the warehouse to which they are consigned. The words of the Bill are, "premises to which they are consigned," but it was pointed out that on many occasions goods may not be consigned to premises, and we, therefore, desire to make this Amendment.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: Could not "destination" be defined? Might there not be some trouble from this aspect, that under the bill of lading the time when the shipowner's liability would cease would be when the goods crossed the side of the vessel, either into the lighter or on to the quay, and that, in the ordinary method of nomenclature, would be the destination of the goods? I fully welcome my right hon. Friend's intention of enabling the Board to give cover to the warehouse, but I would ask him to consider the difficult point as to whether "destination" in this special context should not be clarified by some further definition.

Mr. Stanley: I do not think there is any risk of confusion here. I understand that this is the drafting always used at the time when this sort of risk is covered.

Amendment agreed to.

10.25 P.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out "Great Britain,

Northern Ireland," and to insert "the United Kingdom."
This Amendment is moved in consequence of the extension of Part II of the Bill to Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend indicated in the course of the Second Reading that the Government would be willing to extend the provisions of Part II to Northern Ireland if the Government of Northern Ireland indicated their wish to come in. They have indicated their desire to do so, and it has become necessary to make this alteration in Part I in order to give effect to the principle that runs throughout the original drafting of the Bill, that where goods are moved between two warehouses in which the goods are insurable under Part II the goods should be covered under Part II during transit except in so far as they may be transported in a seagoing vessel. The effect, therefore, of this Amendment would be that in the case of goods which are being transported from this country to Northern Ireland the ship to warehouse risks at both ends of the journey would be covered under Part II and not under Part I, while the actual ship voyage would be covered under Part I.

Amendment agreed to.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out from "therein," to the end of the Clause.
The purpose of this Amendment is that the lighters or other craft into which cargo may be discharged or from which cargo may be loaded into ships should be covered by insurance. As we see it, that provision is expressly excluded by the Clause as it stands. I think it must be


admitted that the part that lighters and kindred vessels play in connection with the handling of cargoes is very important both here and abroad. Some of those vessels are driven by motor power, and some are of relatively costly construction, and why they are to be excluded from war risk cover we are somewhat at a loss to understand. It seems to us that if this cover is not afforded shipowners and receivers of cargo may find difficulty in obtaining the necessary vessels for the handling of cargoes either at the time of loading or discharging. Perhaps there may be some subtle explanation of why the Bill has deliberately excluded these vessels, by the provision:
does not include any vessel into which the goods are discharged at any port or place in that country for the purpose of being landed at that port or place, or from which the goods are discharged for the purpose of being carried by sea or by air from that country, as the case may be.
We know that cargoes in transit either after discharge or before discharge are exceedingly liable to be damaged in time of war, and we propose this Amendment to give the necessary cover. If in some parts of the Bill which we have not discovered that cover is already available we may be satisfied to withdraw the Amendment, but in the absence of some such assurance it seems to us a remarkable position that these important instruments for the handling of cargo should not receive protection against King's enemy risk at a time of war.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I quite understand the hon. Member's desire to deal with the question of lighters, but I think he misconceives the meaning of Sub-section (2) and also the effect of the Amendment which he is moving. The definition of ship or aircraft which includes the words which he wants to delete, would, as he says, eliminate the lighter, as in paragraph (e).If the hon. Gentleman will look at paragraph (e) he will see that it has nothing to do with insurance of ships, whether it is an ocean-going ship or a lighter, but only with the insurance of cargoes. The reason for the words which the hon. Gentleman wants to leave out is that we desire to cover those goods as soon as they come over the ship's side —by "ship" I mean the ocean-going

ship that brought them in—until they reach their destination. By excluding the lighter from the definition of ship we are able in the same policy to cover the whole of the journey.
If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and the lighter then fell under the definition of ship, the cover under paragraph (e) would start to run only when the goods were moved from the lighter, and there would be no cover under paragraph (e) between the liner and the shore. It is clear that the whole of the operation from the liner to the ultimate destination should be covered in one policy and it is for that reason that the definition is given. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point as to the cover of lighters, that would be possible under paragraph (b), as he will see if he looks at it. It would be possible in war-time to insure lighters as ships under that cover.

10.33 P.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to effect cover from one point to another so that there will be no disturbance, but surely it is wrong that lighters into which the goods are discharged should not come within the scope of the insurance or be able to receive compensation in the event of damage, although the goods themselves are protected and the vessels from which the goods are unshipped are also protected. The right hon. Gentleman has argued throughout these Debates that some inducement must be offered to shipowners and owners of goods in order to maintain the commercial needs of the country. This is the inducement that is offered, the insurance and the additional cover which the right hon. Gentleman described. It may be that shipowners and owners of cargoes require additional cover of this kind, but what is to happen to the owners of lighters and barges? If risk is entailed in the particular area where these barges and lighters operate in carrying goods from ships to the dock-side and on the waterways of the count-try, and if they are not covered by insurance, is it not likely that their owners will lay up their vessels and not bring them into use? Surely an inducement is necessary in their case, just as in the case of the shipowners and the owners of cargoes and goods.
I venture the opinion that this anomaly ought to be removed. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that these vessels, if they can be called vessels, are not in the same category as the ships which are covered by the insurance provisions of the Bill, and, so far as I am aware, they do not come within the scope of marine insurance risks. Nevertheless, they are essential goods required for the carrying on of the commercial needs of the country, whether in time of war or in time of peace. Without lighters or barges it would be impossible in many waterways of the country, and certainly in the Port of London, to tranship the goods and convey them to the shore as at present. Therefore, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider this matter, and that, if he cannot provide some re-insurance for the owners of lighters and barges, he ought at least to be able on Report to indicate what measure of compensation will be provided for the owners of lighters and barges so as to ensure that these vessels will be kept in commission, or, in other words, utilised for the purposes of the transhipment of goods.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand that under this Clause the ocean-going ships will be covered from the point of embarkation to the point of disembarkation, and that the cargoes will be similarly covered, including transfer from the ship to the lighter, but that the last point on the journey, namely, the lighters, which take the cargoes which will be insured under the Clause, will not themselves be insured? If so, there would seem to be the anomaly that if the ocean-going liner were sunk the insurance would run on the cargo boat and on the cargo, but if the lighter were sunk the insurance would only run on the cargo and not on the lighter. Is that correct?

Mr. Stanley: I pointed out that it would be possible under paragraph (b) for the Board, if they so desired, to insure the lighter, and equally it is possible, if we find it preferable, for the lighter to be brought with other property under the purview of the new committee that we are setting up.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that it comes within the scope of paragraph (b), which says:

the insurance by the Board, during the continuance of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, of British ships and of foreign ships not being ships used in the service of a Power at war with His Majesty.
Are we to understand that the term "British ships" in this paragraph includes barges and lighters?

Mr. Stanley: It is not covered by the draft agreement, but I understand that it could be covered under this paragraph.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it specifically covered?

Mr. Stanley: It could be.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not clear what is meant by "could be." It is true that they do not come within the scope of any agreements that can be entered into between the Board of Trade and the mutual indemnity association. It may be —I am not certain about this—that some lighter and barge owners do insure with indemnity associations. I should not be surprised if that is so. Are we to understand that these associations are out with the scope of the agreements included in the Bill? In any event it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be more specific. My surmise is that they are not included at any time in the Bill. In spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that they could be, I do not think that at any time they could be. It seems to me that the provision ought to be very much more specific than it is. It has been suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that this is an anomaly. It is really monstrous that an anomaly of this kind should continue. The right hon. Gentleman said something about a previous Amendment making nonsense of the Bill. If anything makes nonsense of the Bill, it is the fact that, although the ship is insured and the cargo is insured, the lighter into which the cargo is transhipped is not insured.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The Minister states that this insurance of lighters and barges may be effected under paragraph (b), but that paragraph refers to:
 "the insurance by the Board, during the continuance of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, of British ships and of foreign ships not being ships used in the service of a Power at war with His Majesty.
That makes no reference to barges or lighters. What protection can be afforded to lighters and barges abroad which are engaged in loading or discharging British


or neutral vessels employed by this country? As we know, the sole method of handling cargoes in many ports abroad is through lighters. It is an important part of the trade of many countries, and if this method of conveyance is to be excluded from the protection which Great Britain is to give to those handling her cargoes I can easily see, from my own experience, the withdrawal of such barges and lighters from the use of the British Government. If the Minister states that this protection can be given, may we inquire whether it will be done, so that barges and lighters shall have the protection which is unquestionably missing as the Clause stands?

10.43 P.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I cannot understand why the Bill goes out of its way to exclude
any vessel into which the goods are discharged at any port or place …
Is that a general custom of the trade? We are entitled to some explanation.

Mr. Stanley: In the Sub-section to which we are referring they are excluded because the previous practice was always to issue policies on goods but not on the lighters.

10.44 P.m.

Miss Wilkinson: It is all right for the Minister to get up and, in a pontifical way, say, "We are just restoring previous practice," but why should that be so? Must the Minister go back to the year one, and cite the fact that he is going back to a previous practice as an answer?

Mr. Stanley: The lighter in which the goods are carried and the goods that are carried in the lighter are usually in different ownership.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that frequently the cargoes carried on vessels are not in the same ownership as the vessels.

Mr. Stanley: It is for that reason that we have two different schemes: one for cargoes and one for vessels.

Mr. Wilmot: Does it not appear that the good risks will be carried by private insurance and the really risky risks placed on the Exchequer?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 119.

Division No. 272.]
AYES.
[10.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Errington, E.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Colman, N, C. D.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Findlay, Sir E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fleming, E. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Apsley, Lord
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Furness, S. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Critchley, A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Button)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Goldie, N. B.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cross, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Granville, E. L.


Balniel, Lord
Cruddas, Col. B.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Culverwell, C, T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Grimston, R. V.


Beechman, N. A.
De Chair, S. S.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hambro, A. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Denville, Alfred
Hannah, I. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Doland, G. F.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dower, Lieut.-Col, A. V. G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bracken, B.
Drewe, C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Duggan, H. J.
Hepworth, J.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duncan, J. A. L.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Holdsworth, H.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Eckersley P. T.
Holmes, J. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cary, R. A.
Emery, J, F.
Hunloke, H. P.




Hutchinson, G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Snadden, W. McN.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Somerset, T.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Munro, P.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H, H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Keeling, E. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Kellett, Major E. O.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Spent, W. P.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Latham, Sir P.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lees-Jones, J.
Peake, O.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leighton, Major D. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lindsay, K. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lipson, D. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Little, J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Rankin, Sir R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. o. S.
Reed. A. C. (Exeter)
Touche, G. C.


Loftus, P. C.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tree, A. R, L. F.


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mabane,, W. (Huddersfield)
Renter, J. R.
Turton, R. H.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wakefield, W. W.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rose Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rowlands, G,
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A


McKie, J. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R, J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salmon, Sir I.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, E. W.
Willoughby de Eresby Lord


Markham, S. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Selley, H. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wise, A. R.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
York, C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Moreing, A. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Smithers, Sir W.
Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-




Colonel Kerr.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Riley, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Horabin, T. L.
Silkin, L.


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'-n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilmot, John


Garro Jones, G. M
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pethick-Lawrence Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pritt, D. N.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Transitional provision for compensation in respect of goods in transit after discharge or before shipment.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 19, leave out from "and," to the end of line 20, and insert "their destination."—[Mr. Stanley.]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out from "amount" to "in," in line 37, and to insert "calculated."
I suggest that we might take this Amendment and the one that follows together.

The Chairman: The second Amendment is consequential.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir Dennis. The point that concerns us on these benches in these two Amendments was debated on the first Amendment which we moved to Clause I and relates to the question of liability. We object to the Board of Trade accepting the whole of the liability that is likely to be incurred. In our view the Board of Trade will not be able to

accept the whole liability, if there is considerable damage. Having stated that position on the first Amendment and having been defeated, I merely repeat our argument on these Amendments, and we propose to proceed to a Division.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member has moved his Amendment with brevity, and I will reply equally briefly. My right hon. Friend has already given reasons why the previous Amendment could not be accepted, and I will not take up time by repeating the argument on these Amendments. The purpose of the Clause is to maintain a flow of goods in peace time by guaranteeing the trader that he will not incur loss in the early days of a war. After that there are insurance provisions. Unless this guarantee were given a series of evil consequences would flow, such as unemployment, reduction of stocks, and so on. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 108.

Division No. 273.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Ll.-Col. G. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Albery, Sir Irving
Colman, N. C. D.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Allan, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Colville, Rt.(. Hon. John
Findlay, Sir E.


Allan, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fleming, E. L.


Amery, fit. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fool, D. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Apsley, Lord
Craven-Ellis, W.
Furness, S. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Critchley, A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. G.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cross, R. H.
Goldie, N. B.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Balniel, Lord
Cruddas, Col. B.
Granville, E. L.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Culverwell, C. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Beechman, N. A.
De Chair, S. S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Danville, Alfred
Hambro, A. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Doland. G. F.
Hannah, I. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir Ft. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bracken, B.
Drewe, C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Duggan, H. J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hepworth, J.


Brooks, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Eckersley, P. T.
Holdsworth, H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holmes, J. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Ellis, Sir G.
Horabin, T. L.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Carver, Major W. H.
Emery, J. F.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Cary, R. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack.. N.)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Errington, E.
Hume, Sir G. H.




Hunloke, H. P.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Somerset, T.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Munro, P.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Spens. W. P.


Keeling, E. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Kellett, Major E. O.
O'Connor, Sir Terence. J. 
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univ's.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Orr-Ewing, I, L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Latham, Sir P.
Peake, O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Leach, Sir J. W.
Petherick, M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lees-Jones, J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Taylor, C, S. (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, K. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Lipson, D. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Rankin, Sir R.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Read, A. C. (Exeter)
Touche, G. C.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Loftus. P. C.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L.


Loftus, P. C.
Remer, J. R.
Turton, R. H.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wakefield, W. W.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rosa, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rowlands, G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


McKie, J. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J,
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
White, H. Graham


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, E. W.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Markham, S. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Medlicott, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Selley, H. R.
Wise, A. R.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
York, C.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Moreing, A. C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Snadden, W. McN.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major




Sir James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pools, C. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, HI. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) 
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helena)


Batty, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.


Benson, G.
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. S.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooks, F. S.
Lawton, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght' n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Logan, O. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. Q.


Dabble, W.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Islet)
Watson, W. McL.


Ed., J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Elian


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, O.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilmot, John


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 6, leave out "Great Britain, Northern Ireland," and insert "the United Kingdom."

In line 23, leave out from "the," to end of line 24, and insert "destination of the goods is."

In line 30, leave out from "the," to end of line 31, and insert "destination of the goods is." —[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Liabilities of re-insurer in the event of insurer's insolvency.)

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, at the end, to insert:
or a receiver is appointed on behalf of the holders of any debentures of the company secured by a floating charge or possession is taken by or on behalf of the holders of such debentures of any property comprised in or subject to the charge.
This Clause is designed to ensure that when the re-insurer is called upon for payment of loss, in the case of the bankruptcy of the insurer the money shall go straight to the insured. In drafting the original Clause, we overlooked a particular method of insolvency, and this Amendment fills in that gap.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5. —(Exemption of certain bodies from Section 357 of Companies Act, 1929.)

11.9 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, at the end, to add:
(2) This Section shall be deemed to have come into operation on the twentieth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
This manuscript Amendment is worded the same as Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, and it brings this Clause into line with Clause 1. A war risks insurance pool has been in existence since 13th April, 1939, and, therefore, it has been illegal under the Companies Act since that date. It is to legalise the position that I move this Amendment.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: Clause 5 is specially designed in order to take out of the

purview of some Sections of the Companies Act the special pool which has been set up for the re-insurance of cargoes against King's Enemy Risks. As I explained on the Second Reading, it was necessary in the very troubled conditions of middle April to bring this scheme into provisional operation at once. In Clause I we antedated the Bill for one purpose. I regret that we did not ante-date the operation of this Clause at the same time, but the Amendment will remedy that omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, in connection with this section of the Companies Act, whether all the other associations are also illegal, and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in regard to them?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think the other associations are outside the scope, but I will verify that before another stage.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation of Part 1.)

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, at the end, to add:
(3) In this Part of this Act the expression ' goods ' includes currency and any securities payable to bearer not being either bills of exchange or promissory notes.
Under the Bill, as drafted, goods are defined in Clause 21. That definition of goods is unsuitable for the purpose of Part I, the insurance of cargoes, because it includes such things as growing crops. We are advised that, for marine insurance purposes, it is not necessary to define goods providing it is clear that currency and securities payable to bearer, not being either bills of exchange or promissory notes, are included. That is in accordance with ordinary marine insurance practice.

Mr. Bellenger: What is the position in relation to currency Will bullion or will it not be covered? I do not quite understand how bills of exchange or promissory notes can be insured, but perhaps I have not quite understood the hon. Gentleman's-explanation.

Mr. Cross: There is a separate provision in the agreement covering bullion. Currency is a separate matter. Bullion is dealt with separately in the agreement made with the insurance pool. Currency becomes insurable under the Amendment, and that is in accordance with ordinary marine insurance practice. Promissory notes and bills of exchange are excluded because, in the event of their loss, duplicates are obtainable.

Mr. Bellenger: How will currency be insurable? If it is not bullion, what is currency?

Mr. Cross: Pound notes.

Mr. Bellenger: On what basis are you going to insure one pound notes—on the nominal value of the notes or on the actual cost? On what basis of value is it proposed to recompense owners of notes which are damaged or lost in transit?

Mr. Cross: It is already the practice of the marine insurance market, and no doubt the terms of the policy will be in line with the ordinary practice. My understanding of it is the notes are insured for their face value.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Scheme of insurance to operate in the event of war.)

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "the United Kingdom."
This is the first of a number of Amendments, the object of which is to bring Northern Ireland within the scope of Part II of the Bill. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) during the Second Reading Debate, and the view was expressed that Northern Ireland should be included. I then said it was a reserved subject and that Northern Ireland could only be brought in if they so desired. Northern Ireland has since expressed a desire to be included in Part II and this and the subsequent Amendments effect that inclusion.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.17 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: It is a great regret to many hon. Members of the Committee that Part II of the Bill should have to go through in this form, without any further assurance from the Government with regard to the general insurance of property as well as goods, while it is impossible to move such an Amendment as we would desire, on account of the limiting way in which the Bill is drafted. It is disturbing to find springing up in the country to-day numbers of so-called mutual risk insurance bodies which are beginning to practise on a basis which must be very misleading in some cases, and may involve some financial danger to those who are regarded as possible clients. I have come across a case to-day of a prospectus, which may cover goods of the character referred to in the Clause or may, more widely still, cover property and in it, people are warned in advance that the premiums are settled at a certain rate and that, at once, 50 per cent. of those premiums are taken for expenses. The remaining 50 per cent. are to be paid into the insurance fund and will then be used only as a mutual pool and not by any means as an actual insurance pool from premiums to cover the whole or anything like the whole risk. It seems to me that the Government should be prepared to tackle the whole question of property from a Government angle and take the good with the bad. Then there would be some hope of putting up a fund which, if it did not meet the whole loss incurred in war time, would go a long way in the direction of saving people, who want to make some provision against these risks, from complete financial loss. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not able now to widen the scope of the Bill, to prosecute with a great deal more urgency the objective which we have in mind, so that owners of goods or property will not be allowed to pay heavy premiums with no real benefit, when the State might be undertaking a much wider real war risk insurance of property and goods to meet the situation.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: The present position is very unsatisfactory and is bound to remain so until the Government issue some authoritative statement. I hope the Government will take an early opportunity of giving some direction or guidance to


the owners of house property, thousands of whom are members of the party which I support and have sunk their savings in small houses—I am speaking particularly about owner-occupiers—and so save many of them from paying premiums from which they will get very small benefits in the event of war occurring.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I have some difficulty in replying, because, as both speakers have pointed out, we are not in order in discussing the subject of property in terms. I would refer them to my statement on the Second Reading. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pressing on with the formation of that committee. I do realise, from many points of view, the urgency of the problem and not least the point of view of the danger that until there is some authoritative scheme, if such a scheme can be produced, you may have these mushroom, and not always possibly very honest, companies springing up and exploiting ignorant people. Without knowing the facts of the case, I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by calling attention to a case where a company proposes to take 50 per cent. of the premiums for expenses, has done some service by warning those to whom this appeal may be made.

CLAUSE 8.—(Registration of insurances which would be required in the event of war.)

11.23 P.m.

Amendments made:

In page 8, line 4, leave out "had been," and insert "were."

In line, 7, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom."

In page 9, line 18, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom." —[Mr. Cross.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to make insurance compulsory in time of war.)

11.24 P.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "the United Kingdom."

This and the remaining Government Amendments to this Clause are in the nature of drafting Amendments. The Clause prohibits a person carrying on business as a seller of goods owned by him unless he is insured when the compulsory provisions have been put into force. Some doubt was felt whether that would cover an agent. There might, for instance, be an agent acting on behalf of a foreign owner of goods. It was obviously the intention of the Clause that that person should be compelled to insure those goods, just as much as a British owner of goods is compelled to insure his goods, and this Amendment will remove all doubts on that score.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 42, leave out "owned by him."

In line 42, after "unless," insert:
in respect of any goods insurable under this Part of this Act which are for the time being owned by him in the course of that business.

In line 44, leave out from "all," to "for," in page 10, line 2, and insert "such goods."

In page 10, line 3, leave out "of all such goods so owned," and insert "thereof for the time being "—[Mr. Cross.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Restriction on carrying on certain insurance business in time of war.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 25, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom." —[Mr. Stanley]:

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11 —(Goods insurable under Part II.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 43, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Cross.]

11.27 P.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 11, line 4, to leave out from the first "in," to "being," in line 7, and to insert "the United Kingdom."
With your permission, Colonel Clifton Brown, I think this Amendment should


be taken in conjunction with the Amendment to insert the new Sub-section (3):
Goods shall be deemed not to be goods insurable under this Part of this Act if and so long as they are insured by the Board of Trade under Part I of this Act.
The present test as to whether goods are insurable under Part II is whether they could lawfully be insured under Part I. If they can lawfully be insured under Part I they cannot be insured under Part II, but it could occur that goods might be lawfully insured under Part I but that the Board of Trade have not exercised their powers in that respect. It would follow from that that goods were not insured under Part I and at the same time would have become uninsurable under Part II. The Amendment remedies that position by making the test one of whether the goods are actually insured under Part I or not.

Amendment agreed to.

11.29 p.m.

Captain Strickland: I beg to move, in page 11, line 11, after "ingredients," to insert "or component parts."
This is a manuscript Amendment, which, I hope, may be accepted. It is obvious that there are certain parts of machinery, for instance, that could not be regarded as ingredients, and it is for the purpose of being able to include component parts of such things that I am moving this Amendment.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: This is really a drafting Amendment, and I think it expresses things better. Raw cotton may properly be described as an ingredient of cotton cloth, but one would not describe a cogwheel as an ingredient of a piece of machinery, and the introduction of "component parts" would cover such cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 11, line 14, leave out "Great Britain," and insert "the United Kingdom."

In line 19, leave out "so situated as aforesaid," and insert "situated in the United Kingdom." —[Mr. Stanley.]

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:

(2) In relation to a person carrying on in the United Kingdom the business of selling agricultural products produced by him, all agricultural products and livestock for the time being situated in the United Kingdom shall, subject to the following provisions of this Section, be deemed to be goods insurable under this Part of this Act.
Provided that the Board of Trade may by order direct that a compulsory insurance order shall not operate so as to require a person to be insured in respect of any goods which, in relation to that person, would not, apart from the provisions of this Sub-section, be goods insurable under this Part of this Act.

This Amendment deals with the position of a business selling agricultural products. The Bill, as introduced, would leave it to the Board of Trade to exclude or include particular classes of agricultural goods. During the Debate on the Second Reading, the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out that it did not seem a good plan that these agricultural goods should be within or without the scope of insurance on the order of the Board of Trade. I thought there was force in the criticism. Now, in the Amendment, all agricultural products can be insurable under the scheme. That will cover a quantity of agricultural products which do not fall under the strict operation of Part II. For instance, a dairy herdsman sells the milk but does not sell the cow. He would be able to insure the dairy herd if he desired, in the time of voluntary insurance; but when a compulsory scheme is introduced the policy applied to agricultural products will be the same in degree as is to be put upon the seller of any type of goods. Then the description of agricultural products will fall within the general description of Part II; that is to say, it must be owned for purposes of selling.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 26, at the end, insert:
(3) Goods shall be deemed not to be goods insurable under this Part of this Act if and so long as they are insured by the Board of Trade under Part I of this Act." —[Mr. Stanley.]

11.34 P.m.

Captain Strickland: I beg to move, in page 11, line 41, at the end, to add:
(4) Things which, in relation to a person carrying on any business as a seller of goods, are at any time goods insurable under this Part of this Act shall not cease to be goods so insurable by reason only that they are subsequently placed in or affixed to land under a contract of sale entered into by that person in the course of that business.

Mr. Stanley: As I understand this Amendment, if you are assembling a machine in your own workshop you can insure the component parts under Part II, but if you are under contract to assemble the parts of the machine in someone else's factory, unless this Amendment is accepted, it is possible—although I am not convinced of it—that it would be outside the scope of the insurance. The Amendment makes it plain that such a case would be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Legal proceedings.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 2, after "England," insert "or Northern Ireland." —[Mr. Stanley."]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Employment of agents by Board of Trade.)

11.37 P.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 12, line 4, after "employ," to insert "or authorise the employment of."

This Amendment and the three following Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend deal with the same point. Under the Clause as drafted the Board of Trade may only appoint agents, and this Amendment will bring all the companies' agents within the authority of the Board of Trade. It will enable the Board to appoint sub-agents, and thereby make the fullest use of the existing insurance machinery.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 12, line 4, leave out "such."

In line 5, leave out "as they think fit." —[Mr. Cross.]

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, to leave out "by them."

Mr. Alexander: I do not see why these words should be left out, or why the Amendment is consequential.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will see that the Clause says that the Board may employ persons to act as their agents, and may pay remuneration

to persons so employed by them. "Obviously the words by them" are redundant, as the words "so employed" make it plain that these people are employed by the Board of Trade.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14 (Orders of Board of Trade.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, line 29, leave out "things," and insert "goods."

In line 30, leave out "to be or." —[Mr. Stanley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Interpretation and extent of Part II.)

Amendments made:

In page 13, line 10, leave out "and."

In line 19, at the end, insert:
(c) the expression 'agricultural products' means products of agriculture. horticulture or silviculture, and includes growing crops, plants and trees;
(d) the expression ' livestock ' includes animals of any description; and
(e) the expression ' goods ' mean? goods as defined by Section sixty-two of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and includes agricultural products."—[Mr. Cross.]

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, in page 13, line 39, after "ship," to insert "constructed for sale."
This Amendment and the next have been Inserted to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson). He indicated that the words already in the Clause relating to the completion of construction of ships were not in accord with the ordinary practice, and that a gap in the insurance might occur because after a vessel had been completed it had to go on its trials, and would not be insurable by the shipbuilder or the shipowner, as the shipowner would not have possession of the ship as a seller of goods in the United Kingdom. This Amendment will remedy that situation. It goes further and deals with the situation created if the constructor went into liquidation or bankruptcy. It provides that in that case the constructor or his


personal representative must still be the person to insure to carry out the insurance. That is necessary because it would not be within the power of the purchaser to insure the vessel.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: What is the position in the event of the shipowner having paid money on account as the work proceeds on the building of the ship? Is the liability on the constructor to have that vessel insured although he is not the owner of those portions which have been already paid for?

Mr. Cross: Yes, that is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 41, leave out from "before," to the end of line 42, and insert:
delivery of the ship to the purchaser; and the foregoing reference to the constructor shall be construed as including a reference to his personal representative or any person carrying on business in succession to him by virtue of any assignment or transmission by operation of law." —[Mr. Cross.]

In line 43, leave out Sub-section (3). —[Mr. Stanley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.44 P.m.

Mr. Alexander: I see that "livestock" is so interpreted as to include "any animals." I should like to know exactly what the Minister has in mind. I hope he does not propose to insure rabbits for example. Perhaps he will think it over before the Report stage is taken to-morrow night.

Mr. Pritt: Will it include the rats on a sinking ship?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman knows of any case of the selling of rats, but I understand that in the case to which he refers the selling is usually done by the rats themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) will see that, although he truly described the wide spirit of the provision, it is qualified by the fact that you can only insure people carrying on

business as sellers of these goods, and they are not the people carrying on business as sellers of the particular animals to which reference has been made.

Clauses 16 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Definition of "goods".)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, who was taken aback at the rapidity of our progress, that I gave the correct explanation for leaving out this Clause on a previous Amendment. No. hon. Member, I am glad to say, noticed the mistake. I am also glad that the Amendment which I explained quite correctly was really a drafting Amendment.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE —(Application to Scotland and Northern Ireland.)

(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modification, that is to say, Sub-section (4) of Section eight shall have effect as if the word "summarily" were omitted.

(2) This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland subject to the following modification, that is to say, the expression "summary conviction" means conviction subject to, and in accordance with, the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and any Act (including any Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland) amending that Act.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is merely an application Clause applying the Act both to Scotland and to Northern Ireland.

Clause added to the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

Orders of the Day — BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause.—(Power of society to add to advances to members in certain cases.)

(1)For the purpose of facilitating repayment to the society of an advance made or to be made by the society to a member upon the security of freehold or leasehold estate, a society shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, power to make to the member, by way of addition to the advance aforesaid, a further advance of the whole or part of such sum as may be necessary to enable payment to be made of a single premium payable in respect of a policy of life assurance upon the life of the member or the spouse or son or daughter of the member, being a policy which provides for payment, in the event of the death of the person upon whose life the policy is effected before the advance has been repaid, of any sum not exceeding such sum as is sufficient to defray the sums which are, at and after the time of the death, payable to the society in respect of the advance as increased by the additional advance made by the society under the power conferred by this Sub-section.

(2) Where, in pursuance of the power conferred by the last foregoing Sub-section, a society has added any sum to an advance made by the society upon the security of freehold or leasehold estate, the sum so added to the advance shall not be deemed to form part thereof for the purpose of determining whether the advance is beyond the power of the society by reason—

(a)of the amount of the advance being excessive; or
(b)of the amount of any excess advance included in the advance being greater than that which is authorised by this Act.

(3) Where a society has made an advance to a member upon the security of freehold or leasehold estate, and the advance is an advance to which the provisions of Section five of this Act apply, then, if the society subsequently adds to the advance a further advance under the power conferred by this Section, the said provisions shall also apply in relation to that further advance; and for the purpose of the application thereto of those provisions, the further advance shall be deemed to have been made at the time when the original advance was made.

(4) In relation to an advance made by a society before the first day of January, nine teen hundred and twenty-six, the references in this Section to freehold or leasehold estate shall be deemed to include references to copy hold estate. —[The Solicitor-General..]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In the long Committee stage of this very complicated Bill it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) that the practice of issuing single premium policies, which have the advantage that they provide for the death of the person who has mortgaged his property and can be taken out equally in the name of the mortgagor or of the son or daughter or the dependent of the mortgagor, should be recognised and should be put beyond the reach of criticism. I think it was recognised in all parts of the Committee that policies of that kind were extremely valuable and that anything which threw doubt on the validity of such policies should be removed. One point was raised that where you had a premium or an instalment advanced for the purpose of enabling the premium to be paid, the total sum that was so advanced might in certain circumstances exceed 100 per cent., and it could therefore not be said to be money advanced on the security of freehold or leasehold estate. My right hon. and learned Friend in dealing with that point in Committee expressed the view that in the Bill as it stood such an advance even if it exceeded 100 per cent., would be a valid advance in the case of a pooling arrangement. A strong case was made out for allowing the premium to bring the total advances to over 100 per cent. in cases where there was no pooling agreement. It was generally felt that this kind of transaction is desirable and prudent and prevents a great deal of distress on the death of the breadwinner. This new Clause implements the undertaking given, fulfils the desire of the hon. Member for Harwich, and applies in the case of policies whether taken out by the borrower or a member of his family. It will be noted when we come to look at the Clause that it will be necessary to eliminate the proviso to Clause 2 (4), because the Clause now covers and clarifies the ground, and that proviso will no longer be necessary.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Requirements with respect to mortgages.)

(1) Every mortgage of freehold or leasehold estate to secure an advance by a society shall contain a notice in the prescribed form and in type at least as prominent as the rest of the contents of the mortgage, summarising the effect of the mortgage and the duties and


liabilities of the mortgagor there under, and a copy of the mortgage shall be delivered or sent to the mortgagor within seven days after the execution of the mortgage.

(2) In the event of failure to comply with any of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this Section in relation to any advance no sums shall be recoverable, either by the society or by any other person, in respect of the advance nor shall any rights be exercise-able by virtue of the mortgage except by leave of the court, and where there has been any such failure as aforesaid the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3 of Section six of this Act shall apply as if the society had failed to give the notice required by that Section. —[Mr. John Wilmot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is necessary because of the circumstances surrounding the purchase of a house by means of an advance made by a building society to a small borrower. Hon. Members will appreciate that in the vast majority of cases where resort is made to a building society for an advance the purchase of a house by a working man is the largest financial transaction he has ever entered into in his lifetime. It is, therefore, very important for everybody to understand exactly what it is that he has to meet. It is a fact which I think will be admitted on all sides that as a result of the vast post-war expansion of house buying and building society lending a very large number of those who borrow money from the building societies to buy houses do not really appreciate the nature of the liability which they are undertaking. It is a very common misconception that the liability is limited to the payment of so many shillings a week which the borrower regards as payment in lieu of rent. Many borrowers believe that if adversity should come upon them they will be relieved of their liability by vacating the house and leaving it to the building society. Few of these borrowers realise that they are in fact under an obligation to repay the sum which they have borrowed, that the house is merely security for the performance of that repayment and that, come what may, their whole estates may be attached for the purpose of repaying the sum.
Those who are accustomed to property and business transactions are advised by

a lawyer and know what their undertaking is at the time they do it. But it is the common practice for small borrowers not to be independently advised. The usual slogan "No legal charges" means that the vendors' solicitor acts also for the borrower, but, even so, the deed of mortgage is so complicated and long a document that very few people understand its contents. It is the practice that very few people even have a copy of the mortgage deed. This Clause is designed to deal with that admittedly unsatisfactory situation. It requires that in every case a plain-language endorsement shall be made upon the deed of mortgage setting out so that the borrower may understand exactly what is the total debt, what the rate of interest is, that he is under an obligation to repay that money and under an obligation to repair the property and insure it, and the several obligations he undertakes when he borrows the money and executes the deed. It also requires that a copy of the deed, with this endorsement, be sent to the borrower. I think it would be in the interests of understanding, and would remove a great deal of hardship and difficulty, if this Clause were accepted.

11.57 p.m.

Major Milner: I beg to second the Motion.
I submit that the new Clause is in line with all the other procedure in this Bill, which is designed to give notice to the borrower of the circumstances in which he is borrowing, and the fact that an excess advance may be made. The Bill provides in Clauses 7 and 8 that notice of those and other facts should be given to the borrower. The new Clause provides that notice should be given by means of a copy of the mortgage to the borrower of the conditions under which he is borrowing, and it seems to me that this provision is entirely in line with the rest of the provisions of the Bill. It is quite true that many borrowers do not appreciate the contract into which they are entering. In the vast majority of cases it is no fault of the solicitor, whether he is acting independently or for both vendor and purchaser. It is a duty which is performed in the great majority of cases to explain the mortgage deed. There is a wide misconception that the borrower


from the building society is buying in some way and that if hard times come and he cannot keep up the payments, the only liability to which he is subject is to give up the house, whereas, in addition, he is in fact under a personal covenant to repay. If this proposal were carried it would make the position perfectly clear to the borrower.

Mr. Bellenger: I should like to ask whether this copy of the mortgage is to be supplied free of charge to the borrower, or whether he has to pay a fee, because, as my hon. Friend well knows, at the moment he can get a copy of the mortgage deed but he has to pay for it.

Major Milner: My hon. Friend is right. The solicitor acting either for the vendor or the borrower would be willing to supply a copy of the deed if he is paid for it. I have no doubt that it would be possible for a copy of the deed to be included in the charges made by the builder in respect of the charges of the house.

12 m.

The Solicitor-General: The objects of the new Clause have been summarised by the hon. Member. They are to provide that there should be given to borrowers a document summarising the facts of the mortgage and the duties and liabilities of the mortgagor, that a copy of the mortgage should be delivered to the mortgagor, and that in the event of failure by the building society to do this some penalties, which I am not able adequately to explain, should attach to the building society. The first observation I have to make in the matter is that this is only a variant of the proposition which was put at great length before the Committee upstairs and in that discussion we had the support of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). What, in fact, is sought to be done is to get some kind of simplified mortgage. If you are going to deliver a document, or endorse on an existing document the effect of the mortgage and the duties and liabilities of the mortgagor, you are endorsing on the document exactly what the mortgage does, and if the mortgage is correctly drawn it should contain these things if it contains nothing else. Therefore, you are going to endorse on the

back of a mortgage what is on the face of it, or else you are assuming that the mortgage is drawn so unintelligently that it is of no value to the borrower or anybody else. In the Committee I pointed out that the hon. Member was seeking to do exactly what the Law of Property Act attempted to do, that is to introduce a simplified and standard form of mortgage.

Major Milner: In Committee there was a proposal that there should be a uniform or standard mortgage and to that proposal I could not agree, but this is an entirely different proposal, and what the Solicitor-General is now saying is quite irrelevant to that proposal.

The Solicitor-General: I am addressing myself exactly to this new Clause and I am not taking advantage of an argument which was relevant in the Committee but is not relevant here. In Committee the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) had the courage of his convictions. He attempted to do something which the eminent lawyers who drafted the Law of Property Act tried to do without success. He was courageous enough to put on the Paper the kind of statement which he thought ought to be a summary of an existing mortgage, but the moment he attempted to do that he exposed himself to the criticism as to the various ways in which what he was attempting to do did not correspond to the forms of a standard mortgage at all. He has, therefore, abandoned the attempt to provide a stock form, and now casts a similar obligation on the Registrar of Friendly Societies. This summary of the effect of the mortgage and the duties and liabilities is to be a summary in a prescribed form. For the reasons which we went into at great length in Committee, the Registrar of Friendly Societies would be in exactly the same difficulty as the hon. Member when he sought to elaborate a stock form of mortgage. While everybody is sympathetic with the idea of having legal documents as simple as possible a mortgage by its nature is a complicated transaction and those who are skilled in conveyancing reduce it to the simplest elements to which a mortgage can be reduced. To endorse anything on the terms of a mortgage, and call it a summary of the duties and liabilities of the borrower if it in fact does not say what the mortgage does, is misleading, and for that reason would produce a wholly


false sense of security to the person who reads the summary, which, by the nature of things, cannot be a true summary of the transaction. I pointed out then the apparent attractiveness of trying to condense into a few words what is a complicated and difficult legal transaction. I pointed out that very often the side-notes to sections in Acts of Parliament are such an attempt. In this Bill, we have found cases in which the attempt to summarise in side notes what the Clauses say or do has not been very successfully done.

Mr. Wilmot: You have them still.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, but they are not treated as part of the Bill, and they will not be looked at in order t interpret the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in a court of law. Everybody sympathises with the desire to simplify legal documents, especially in the interests of people who are very often poor and not always as readily able to read complicated documents as Members of Parliament are, but for the reasons I have given, this is not a practicable way of doing what the hon. Member desires to do. Moreover, these mortgages vary very considerably from society to society, from borrower to borrower, and from district to district. Therefore, it would be necessary to prescribe, not one form, but almost as many forms as there are building societies, mortgagors and districts. The true method of dealing with this difficulty of making the borrower understand what he is doing is the method that was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner), in his more regenerate days. As he then said, the real safeguard is that the borrower should be advised by a solicitor. The borrower does, in fact, frequently apply to the solicitor for the building society for information as to the meaning of the deed he is signing. I have in my possession a form issued by a very well-known building society, the Abbey Road, in which there is a provision that the terms of the mortgage deed and the guarantee agreement which the borrower is required to execute should be read carefully. One of the provisions states:
The Society's solicitor will explain the operation of any clause of the deed and agreement not clear to the borrower.
The only real safeguard is that the

borrower should be advised either by a legal adviser of his own or by a solicitor for the building society, who, as the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds said, would discharge his duty with that sense of responsibility by which all solicitors are animated. Even if they are acting for a building society, they would discharge that duty in the interests of the borrower from the building society. If a borrower signs a mortgage deed without reading it or without demanding an explanation if he does not understand it, it is clear that the condition of mind of a person who is prepared to do that is really incurable, and no words such as the hon. Member wishes to be on the back of the document would help a borrower of that kind. The hon. Member desires to see incorporated a provision that a copy of the mortgage should be sent to the borrower, but on our information, I do not think that is necessary, except in so far as it is ancillary to the provision regarding notice. The mortgagor who pays the expense of preparing the mortgage is entitled to a copy for his own use, and under Section 96 of the Law of Property Act, he is entitled to inspect and make copies of documents of title relating to the mortgaged property. He has both those rights. He has a right if he has paid for the preparation of the mortgage, and independently of that, he has a right by statute. I am told that as a matter of practice no building society, certainly of any repute—none that has come to our notice—would be likely to place any difficulty in the way of reasonable inspection of any document relating to the transaction.

Mr. Silkin: Is it not a fact that they make a charge of £1?

The Solicitor-General: That is not our information. My information is that copies are usually available at a small fee, and, of course, inspection of the documents is permissible by reason of the Law of Property Act. As to the fee, I will, if I can, answer the question before I sit down. The remaining matter is the question of sanctions. A Clause of this kind is valueless without a sanction The hon. Member has inserted a sanction in Sub-section (2). I am not absolutely clear as to what is the effect of that sanction, but, as I understand it, it is too severe. It is modelled on the sanction


proposed in Clause 6 on a society which fails, before the transaction is entered into, to inform the borrower as to the nature of the security. But the object of that Clause is, of course, quite different from the object the hon. Member has in mind. It seems a little harsh to say that if the society were, for example, a day late in sending the required copy of the mortgage to the borrower it would be necessary for the society to make application to the court before it could recover any sums due. I also note that no sums may be recoverable either by the society or by any other person, and it might well be that a sanction of that kind would operate in a direction quite contrary to those the hon. Member intends. With regard to the point about the charge usually made by a building society for inspection of documents, I am at the moment unable to ascertain what the usual charge is. [Interruption] That may be, but I have also my experts.

Mr. Pritt: They do not seem much good to you.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is always so civil. With his usual charming courtesy he puts me in my place, but those who are advising me have at least as great a knowledge of the practice of building societies as he has.

Mr. Pritt: Then why cannot you tell us?

The Solicitor-General: The answer may be that my advisers do not guess, where others do.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Markham: As a layman it is with considerable diffidence that I intervene in a quarrel between lawyers. I fear I may be charged fees by both sides. As a layman I am in sympathy with the first edition of the Clause moved so moderately by the hon. Member who is a new comer to the House. The average insurance policy is summarised extraordinarily well, and an insurance policy is not less important in many ways than a mortgage. I feel that some effort ought to be made to summarise succinctly a mortgage in terms which the ordinary man in the street can understand. The Solicitor-General has explained, doubtless accurately, that a borrower can, if he likes, get these things explained to him by a

solicitor, but if a solicitor can explain these things in that way, then surely whoever drafts the mortgage can do the same thing. On the other hard, I think Subsection (2) is rather on the verge of the ludicrous, because to say that if a mortgage is not summarised the whole thing is void is ludicrous, and I hope the House will resist the Amendment.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I admit, as I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) will admit, the difficulty of summarising legal documents. Nevertheless, in cases of this kind, where a man of comparatively small means is borrowing money on the only security that is possible to him, a building society does take the trouble, in its application forms and the various bits of literature that it issues, to explain as much as possible in advance the way in which the borrower is to proceed before he gets his advance. Why, therefore, is it unreasonable to ask that the building society shall explain after it has lent the money to the borrower what exactly his engagements are under that very complicated legal document which he does not understand and which, with all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he very seldom reads? I presume the hon. and learned Gentleman and his advisers have seen these complicated mortgage deeds and will quite understand why it is that so many of these humble borrowers, borrowers, that is, in a humble walk of life, do not read them and indeed are given very little time in which to study them in detail before being asked to sign on the dotted line. Why, therefore, should it be thought unreasonable to ask that the building society should give some clear indication of what the borrower's liabilities are?
The society itself has an interest in this matter, because, owing to the fact that borrowers have not thoroughly understood their liabilities, the societies themselves are beginning to suffer, in that the borrowers in certain cases have not attempted to carry out those liabilities. If we are to have that security in real estate, that stake in the country which hon. Members opposite are always advocating as something in which we should interest the mass of the people, then I think we should do all that is possible to encourage borrowers to understand


what their liabilities are. I speak from personal experience when I say that I do not think I have ever asked to see the title deeds of a property without having to pay some fee to the building society's solicitors, and there are numerous other hon. Members of this House who have had experience of this matter, either as solicitors themselves to building societies or in conveyancing, and I think they would bear me out when I say that almost invariably it is the practice of solicitors to building societies to charge for the production of title deeds when they are asked for.

Mr. Silverman: Invariably.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend says "Invariably," but I qualify that with the word "almost." At any rate, from my experience, I can say that I have always had to pay a fee if I wanted to have the title deeds produced in the circumstances with which we are dealing here. [Interruption.] In effect, the solicitors are almost servants of the building societies. They act for the building society at any rate in the preparation of the mortgage deed. If the fee is paid, it is actually paid to the solicitor of the society, although he is in effect the servant of the society, and I do not think it unreasonable that we should ask that, if the deeds are going to be produced, they should be produced to the borrower without his having to pay any fee either to the society or to the society's solicitors.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: I have no complaint to make of the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but in reference to this question of what fee is charged, I think he has done himself an injustice. He accuses me of having advisers who guess. As I never said a word as to what fee was charged, however, that particular charge seems to me to be pretty baseless. Some hon. Gentleman on this side, I think it was, said the charge was 28s., but then the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite at once said, "No, it is not." It now, however, appears that someone was guessing when he said the charge was only small, because he had not the remotest idea of what it was, whether small or large, and the whole equipment of his Department at the moment could not inform him on the matter at all.

The Solicitor-General: I had immediately previously read out from the Abbey Road Society's conditions that copies would be supplied on application to the society's solicitors at a nominal charge. I may be wrong, but I did not think £1 8s. fulfilled the description of a nominal charge. I was taking the case of a fairly well known building society, and so I assumed that 28s. at any rate was not uncommon.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in his recollection, be cause he made the statement about the small fee before he read out the document from the Abbey Road Society, and he said that his advisers would inform us in a moment or two what the figure really was. In fact he was guessing, and guessing wrongly, and what the Abbey Road Society does on a printed form is not the same thing as the general practice of building societies. It is only one—

Mr. Silkin: I made the statement about the charge that is made for an inspection of documents. The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to copies, which are paid for at so much a folio.

Mr. Pritt: So I need not say any more about that. With regard to whether I endear myself to my own party, I will thank the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to mind his own business. With regard to my endearing myself to his party, I hope I never do. Now let me come to the hon. and learned Gentleman's main argument in opposition to this proposed new Clause. I do not want to compare it with any particular part of a slaughtered animal that is sold cheap, but I really never heard such nonsense in all my life. What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's central argument? He begins with the perfectly true proposition that a mortgage has to be stated in a pretty complicated document. He then enunciates that it is utterly impossible to explain that mortgage in simple language in print. Such a defeatist attitude I could understand if it was some Labour Government's Measure, but when he says as a matter of plain common sense that there is nobody in England who can explain a mortgage in much simpler language than the mortgage itself, he is condemning every draftsman who ever drafted a memorandum to make a Bill intelligible to Members of this House, and


he is condemning all the legislation there has ever been in previous complicated Bills providing that a simple statement shall be given to the unhappy victim of the capitalist system who is buying something by contract under the hire purchase or any other system. Having explained that it is impossible to explain it in simple language, he goes on to say that the proper thing is for the man to go to a solicitor and have it explained to him; and that is all coupled with the fact that he does not see the necessity for the man to have a copy of the document that the solicitor is to explain. Then he is surprised that my natural bad manners overcome me for a moment, when I am expected to sit here in public after midnight and listen to nonsense of that description.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Does that apply to Scotland?

Mr. Pritt: I am not explaining this Bill, nor Scottish law. I am explaining the Solicitor-General's opposition to this Clause, and the words he used ought to persuade anybody to vote for the clause. Surely nobody can have any doubt that it is a very desirable and a very simple operation to put down in simple language the effect of the mortgage deed and above all to put down in simple language the various points that people very commonly misunderstand, such as the point that they really cannot walk out of the house as they can return a hire-purchase bicycle and ride out of further liability. I really do submit that the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman is so poor that the Clause must be accepted.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 157.

Division No. 274.]
AYES.
[12.28 a.m.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Jagger, J.
Silverman. S. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Ammon, C. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bellenger, F. J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Benson, G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Bevan, A.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ede, J. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Dun Valley)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Parker, J.
Wilmot, John


Frankel, D.
Poole, C. C.
Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, C. a. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Ridley, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.



Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Groves.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silkin, L.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Dunglass, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Albery, Sir Irvine
Bullock, Capt. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Emery, J. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cary, R. A.
Errington, E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colman, N. C. D.
Findlay, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fleming, E. L.


Beechman, N. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Foot, D. M.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Critchley, A.
Furness, S. N.


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Graham, Captain A. C (Wirral)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crossley, A. C.
Granville, E. L.


Bracken, B.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
De Chair, S. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Duggan, H. J.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.




Grimston, R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hambro, A. V.
McKie, J. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spens. W. P.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Markham, S. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Holdsworth, H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Holmes, J. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Patrick, C. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Petherick, M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hunloke, H. P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rankin, Sir R.
Turton, R. H.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wakefield, W. W.


Kellett, Major E. O.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Latham, Sir P.
Rowlands, G.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Lees-Jones, J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
White, H. Graham


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lindsay, K. M.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Salt, E. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Samuel, M. R, A.
Wise, A. R.


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Selley, H. R.
York, C.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


M'Connell, Sir J.
Snadden, W. McN.



Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle el Wight)
Somerset. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and,' in line 29, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Additional security in respect of advances made before commencement of Act.)

12.35 a.m.

The Solicitor-Generals: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "other," and to insert "additional."

This is a drafting Amendment to make way for an Amendment which we propose to move later in Clause 15.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Additional security in respect of advances to members after commencement of Act.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 21 to 34.

This Amendment, which is to leave out the proviso between these lines, is consequential on the matter I referred to in moving the new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

12.36 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(5) For the purpose of those provisions of the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894. Which relate to the borrowing of money by societies incorporated under those. Acts, money deposited with such a society as security for an advance made by the society to a member, or as security for any

guarantee given in respect of such an advance, shall be deemed to be money borrowed by the society.

Under the Act of 1874, Section 15, the borrowing powers of building societies are limited and it is laid down that the total amount outstanding on deposit or loan shall not exceed two-thirds of the amount for the time being secured to the society by mortgages from its members. The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the money deposited with the society as an additional security shall be included in the total amount under the Act of 1874.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions relating to special continuing arrangements.)

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(a) for the references in paragraph (a) thereof to two-thirds of the purchase price therein mentioned there were substituted references to 70 per cent. of that purchase price;

This is really a drafting Amendment. This is the result of the alterations we made in the Schedule at the end of the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 11, leave out "reference," and insert "references."—[Captain Crookshank.]

12.38 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end, to add:
(5) Where the Minister has approved any corporate body by an order made under this Section, a society shall not have power, at any time after the expiration of five years from the date of such order and so long as the order remains unrevoked, to make any advance upon the security of any newly-built dwelling-house not being a certified building.
(6) For the purposes of the last foregoing Sub-section a dwelling-house shall be deemed to be newly-built if it has not been erected for more than twelve months before the date of application to a society for an advance upon the security of the dwelling-house.
We attach considerable importance to this Amendment. It is most regrettable that this important piece of legislation should be taken at this late hour because we have many constituents who are concerned with the provisions of this Clause. This Clause is an elaborate arrangement—as I consider, it is window-dressing—but it is one to which the Minister attaches such great importance that he regards it as a substitute for good building, reasonable materials and workmanship, provision for which we have consistently tried to get inserted in the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is that when the Registration Council is set up it shall be used and that it shall in fact, in so far as the provisions of the Clause make it possible, be some real protection to the person who is buying the house. Therefore, we feel that, given a reasonable time for the Registration Council to come into operation and for the arrangements to be made, that after that reasonable time has elapsed building societies shall have it laid upon them that they shall not lend money except on a house which has been certified under the arrangements made under Clause 4.
That is the purpose of this Amendment. We had hoped that three years might be sufficient time. It was laid down in the Committee stage that three years might not be sufficient time to get the Registration Council in working order but we think five years is a very reasonable time and that by then it should have become so much a general custom that people should not buy a house which is not certified under this scheme that it is not unreasonable to say that building societies should not lend money, so far as dwelling houses are concerned, except with regard

to houses which are certified. Now that the Minister has had time to reconsider the matter I hope he will be willing to accept this very reasonable Amendment, which carries with it the definition of the word "dwelling house." We are not suggesting that this should come into operation, obviously, where old houses are purchased whose defects might be known, but that it should be concerned with newly built houses. It is possible to argue whether a particular house might be within the definition or not but we think that on the whole this definition of a newly built house is reasonable. If the Minister is serious in his scheme I do not see how he can argue that, after a lapse of five years, certification should not in fact be made compulsory.

Mr. Tinkers: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.42 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I recognise the importance which the hon. Lady attaches to the system we are now trying to introduce, of certifying houses, which, I think, gained general acceptance upstairs as a helpful advance towards the object we have in mind, namely, to ensure as far as possible that the evils of jerry-building should be dealt with. It was suggested upstairs that a time limit should be laid down in the Bill, beyond which time the builders of houses would have to operate the new system. But I suggested a line of advance which commended itself, I believe, more to the general sense of the Committee, and that was that I undertook to have an inquiry into the working of this scheme long before the five years and before the three years period that was suggested. I put it to the House that that realty is a more hopeful line of advance than this which merely lays down five years, which is a very long time. I would go further with the hon. Lady if I might. She desires to see that something is done. She asked me to be more precise as to the nature of the inquiry and the scope of it. I think that if I can give certain further details now it might enable her not to press her Amendment.
What I suggest the House is anxious to know is, will it be merely an official departmental inquiry by officials and will the report be available to the public as a whole, or will it be a report on which the Minister would act but without the


House being able to examine it to find out whether in their view the matter had been Satisfactorily dealt with? If I gave the House the assurance that what I have in mind is an inquiry by persons of knowledge and standing, who are not officials of my Department, and, secondly, that the inquiry would report to me but that the report would be published, I think I have met the hon. Lady in the matter. If I give that assurance I suggest that it is not necessary for her to press the Amendment, because I do feel that something happening five years hence concerning a scheme which is not yet in operation is not as satisfactory as an inquiry the report of which the House will have in their hands.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the Minister's statement and the lateness of the hour, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet us with regard to an inquiry and publicity, we shall be prepared not to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 6.—[Notice to be given where security is taken from third parties.)

12.45 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from "form," to "no," in line 16, and to insert:
(a) stating, if the said estate is taken by the society as security for the advance, the maximum amount which the society would consider proper to advance upon the security of that estate if no other security were taken by the society for the advance, and the amount, if any, by which the advance exceeds the said maximum amount: and
(b)containing such particulars as may be prescribed relating to any security for the advance which is taken or is to be taken from any person other than the member.
I am afraid I must trespass on the patience of the House with regard to this Amendment, because although its meaning and intention will be familiar to those who went through the long Committee stage upstairs it may not be so clear to other hon. Members. I think I am not really transgressing the bounds of order if I call the House's attention to Clause 11 of the Bill, which explains the Amendment I am moving. When we were in Committee on this Bill an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member which re-

sulted in Sub-section (2) being inserted in Clause 11. Clause 11 is a Clause dealing with the duties which directors of building societies owe to their societies, and it provides, that directors must, in discharge of their duties, employ an approved competent person to assess the value of the security. Into that Clause was inserted, against the Government's will—we were defeated—and notwithstanding the warnings thrown out, the Amendment of an hon. Member opposite dealing with the requirement that notice should be given to the borrower stating the state of repair of the property and so on. After that defeat I made it plain to the Committee that the Clause as a whole would have to be reconsidered in the light of the Amendment that had been carried, but to try to meet the wishes of the Committee I moved into Clause 11 what is now Subsection (5), and the provisions of this Sub-section were that a society should, at the request of a member or person to whom an advance has been made, and on payment of a fee give to that person, in short, particulars of any additional security and the amount at which the estate was assessed by the competent person.
In putting that forward I told the Committee that it would be necessary, before the Bill came to the House, to reconsider the whole structure of the Bill in the light of the Amendment which had been passed. The Amendment I then inserted was criticised by hon. Members from both sides, including the hon. Lady for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) for example, on the ground that it did not give the borrower any assistance until it was too late. It was criticised by the building societies on the ground that this was a valuation which was taken by the building societies for their own purposes and was in a Clause which imposed obligations on directors towards members, and that it was inappropriate that the borrower should see something which was confidential between a director and his society.
After consideration and after the warning that was given in the Committee we have come to the conclusion that there was substance in both those criticisms. Therefore, we propose at a later stage when we reach Clause 11 to ask the House to delete Sub-sections (2) and (5),


and, instead, to insert in Clause 6, where it will be effective, the main part of the benefit that was secured to the borrower in the case of the Amendment in Clause 11. If the Amendment that I am now moving be accepted, the result will be that the society will have to tell the borrower clearly the maximum amount which it would be considered proper to have advanced on the security of the house if there had been no question of additional security. It will have to tell him also the amount of the advance by reason of the security forthcoming. As to the form in which the additional particulars should be given, it is not an easy matter to prescribe exactly what should be given by the society. But I would remind the House that this never has been a party Bill, and we are anxious to have the cooperation of everyone and shall be grateful to receive representations from hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what they think will be helpful to borrowers. I do not think I can give an assurance that will be more welcome to hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen opposite than that. The reason I am moving this Amendment is to do what we were compelled to do in the wrong place in Clause 11 and when we reach Clause 11 I shall ask the House to reverse the decision of the Committee. We are giving the borrower the kind of remedy asked for from the other side of the House.

12.53 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: The Solicitor-General has charmingly wriggled out of the difficulty in which the Government were placed when they were defeated on this matter, and I congratulate him on the skilful way in which he has done it. In fact, he has given the impression of having given us a great concession. What, of course, the Minister realises perfectly well is that he has whittled down the effect of the Amendment moved by one of his hon. Friends and carried against the Government by the Committee, and I suppose that because the right hon. Gentleman has the majority behind him that will therefore be accepted. It will be accepted by that side of the House and not by this side. Under his contention it gets the building society out of a situation which emphatically they do not want of giving the borrower a copy of

the records on which the advance was made. The building societies resisted that and the Government resisted it. The Government were defeated and now they have come with this particular arrangement which gives the building societies what they wanted and goes a small way to what we wanted, but I do not want it to be suggested that we agree with the compromise. We shall be forced to accept it because the Government have the majority behind it.

Amendment agreed to.

12.55 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "five," and to insert "six."
The purpose of this Amendment and the next one is to increase the county court jurisdiction from £500 to £600. It was represented in the Committee upstairs that if the jurisdiction of the county court were extended to this amount it would cover the vast majority of cases and the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) himself suggested that £600 would be a satisfactory figure. I think it was also suggested by the hon. Member for the English Universities. Although that is a departure from the figure adopted in the county courts, I think that in this case we can make an Amendment of this kind.

12.56 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: We shall not move the Amendments which we have put down in relation to this matter, but we say that if you are going to alter the figure five at all there is no particular reason why you should stop at the figure six. There was a reason for putting down an Amendment that the figure should be eight, and that was that £800 was the figure inserted in the previous Housing Act. The desire which we had on this side of the House was to have the figure of £1,000 inserted, because we felt, as the Solicitor-General knows, that then you would have all small-priced houses coming before the county courts for decision. We still feel that it would have been better to have the figure of £800 but if you were increasing the figure at all you had better do it in accordance with practice. As £600 has been moved, we are not prepared to oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 39, leave out "five" and insert "six."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Notice to be given by vendors of property in certain cases.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 13, leave out "and in such manner." —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 8.—(Provisions relating to certain warranties and representations.)

12.58 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out from "reasonable," to the end of the Subsection.
Here, I think, it is necessary to explain to the House exactly why we are moving this Amendment, although in the circumstances we cannot press it to a Division. We do so because right throughout we have argued that the purchaser should get a warranty that the house which he is buying is of reasonable construction, of good workmanlike materials and in conformity with the Building Societies Act. We argue that the building societies should give that warranty because, in effect, the building societies and builders to-day are so interlocked that it is quite reasonable that the building society should assume that responsibility, and because in the circumstances of the case in which there is so much jerry-building the builder is so often a man who clears out from his responsibility.
We moved various Amendments in Committee in order to try to ensure that, but all of them were decisively defeated by the Government. Therefore, there is no other place in which we can get in an Amendment in order to give some kind of warranty to the purchaser, but we realise that this Clause is so inconceivably badly drawn we have already pointed it out to the Government that it really does not mean anything at all and does not in fact, in spite of the little side note, really give anyone a warranty. All it is concerned with is to provide a Clause by which the building society should make it clear that, whatever else is happening, at least they are giving no one a warranty. Of course, if we leave out these last five lines we do not get a warranty; all we get is the fact that the price is reasonable, which is an almost impossible thing to do. We realise that difficulty but we

would just like, as the House is passing this Bill through its final stage, to make on the Floor of the House—as we have not been able to do since the Second Reading—our protest that when this Bill is through, it is a building societies protection Bill which simply gives cover for collateral security and the taking of collateral security when the guarantee has been doubted.
I wish to make it perfectly clear to the public, which imagines that it is going to get some sort of warranty as the result of this Bill, that the Government are not doing that at all. All this does is to give this registration procedure, which may or may not in fact turn out to be an improvement in the present situation; the Minister himself is doubtful about it. He does not know whether it is going to work or whether anybody will work it at all, and all he can offer us is that at the end of a year he will have a look at it and see how it is going on. That is what the public is to get as a result of all that has taken place and the scandals which have been shown up both in the courts and the newspapers as regards jerry-building. It would not be right, and the Opposition would not be doing its duty, unless it registered some protest at the fact that there is actually no warranty whatsoever to the purchaser who now gets his house through a building society. It is in order to make that clear that we move this Amendment.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems strange that the first part of this Clause appears to throw it on the society to give some sort of warranty, and then leaves them a way out by which they need not give that warranty if they first of all state in writing that they do not wish to give any warranty whatever. The building societies have a duty to their depositors as well as to those who mortgage property to them, and it seems to me that if a building is sufficient security and sufficiently well-built for the societies to lend moneys placed on deposit with them by their shareholders, it is only reasonable to ask the societies, or to call upon them, to give some warranty to the mortgagor as it is implied they should give to their depositors who place money with them.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. Wilmot: This is a matter of very great substance, and I think it is very regrettable that the Government and the building societies should have resisted this attempt to cure the evil which really has given rise to this Bill. A building society is not a society of moneylenders; its statutory purpose is to assist people to buy houses, mainly for their own occupation, and one would have thought it would have been the first to do everything possible to see to it that these houses were houses of good quality which were worth the money being paid. It is very regrettable that this opportunity has been allowed to pass without that being done.

1.5 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: It would not be courteous if I were not to say one word in reply to the hon. Lady. Those of us who were on the Committee know she has felt very passionately about this and that she has lost no opportunity to try to get some warranty put into the Bill. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens to gallant fighters, she has lost. But what the Clause does is to make it quite abundantly clear that no one shall be misled on this point. It does safeguard the borrower against being misled as, in the words which it is proposed should be left out, it requires it to be stated very clearly that there is no warranty. I would ask the House to note that, as a matter of fact, since hon. Members last saw the Bill, Clause 4 has been inserted, which does open out a great possibility for improvements in building to give a safeguard against jerry building, and when the hon. Lady comes to consider the Bill I hope she will put that in the scale in favour of what we propose. We note that she has made her protest and there, perhaps, we had better leave it.

1.6 a.m.

Mr. Silkin: I do not think the House ought to be under any misapprehension as a result of what is being done that nobody is going to be misled. If the House looks at the Bill carefully, it will be seen that although the society has to inform the proposed borrower before he enters into any contract to repay, that they are not giving any warranty, it may nevertheless be too late as far as that proposed borrower is concerned, because by that time he may have bought his house or entered into a contract to buy the house,

relying on an advance from the building society. Once he has entered into the contract he is entirely in the hands of the building society and it is too late at that stage, when he has already committed himself to buy the house, to be told that the building society is giving no warranty. Therefore, I think the House should not be misled into the idea that the borrower himself is not going to be misled by this Clause.

1.7 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out "and in such manner"
This Amendment and the next five Amendments are really drafting in character, the only one of any substance being that in page 6, line 41, to leave out "be guilty of an offence and", and to insert:
 he shall, unless he satisfies the court that he had reasonable grounds for believing the representation to be true, be.
Perhaps I may take the six Amendments together. The Amendment in line 41, to which I have referred, is to give effect to a point which was raised in Committee. The Sub-section, as the House will see, imposes penalties on persons who having a financial interest in the disposition of freehold or leasehold land, say anything which implies that a building society, by agreeing to make an advance, has given a warranty as to security. It was pointed out in the Committee stage that in some cases it might be that the building society would, in fact, be giving a warranty and it was asked why a penalty should be imposed on a person for saying something that was obviously true. To meet that point we have put in the proviso that such a person shall only be guilty of an offence if he had not reasonable ground for believing his statement was true.
I ought to say one further word about this Sub-section, because I undertook to re-examine it in the light of the Committee stage discussion. There were a good many representations as to the position of a builder's foreman and simple people of that character who might inadvertently make some representation about what the building society would say which trans-


gressed the Sub-section. I am afraid that having examined this point, we feel we must leave the Sub-section as it is. The position is that if a person who is in the service of a builder makes a statement of that kind on his own authority, then he is himself liable as he ought not to make a statement of that kind. If, on the other hand, he makes a statement as agent for his principal, he ought not to be liable. That is the reason why we move these Amendments.

Major Milner: I want to say one word in relation to the last Amendment but one. The alteration which the Government have moved is, obviously, a desirable one. In view of what has been said, the alterations are not only desirable but essential, and we welcome them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, line 32, at the beginning, insert "If."

In line 35, leave out "who."

In line 40, leave out "shall," and insert "then."

In line 41, leave out "be guilty of an offence and," and insert:
he, shall, unless he satisfies the court that he had reasonable grounds for believing the representations to be true, be.

In line 42, leave out "thereof." —[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 10. —(Restriction on payment of commissions, etc.)

1.12 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "lawful" to the end of line 24, and to insert:
(a) for a person having a financial interest in the disposition of any freehold or leasehold estate, or any servant of such a person, to receive or agree to receive any commission or gift from a society or from any officer, servant or agent of a society, in consideration of the introduction of mortgage business to the society in connection with the disposition of the estate, or in consideration of a promise to introduce such business to the society, or
(b) for a society, or any officer, servant or agent of a society, to offer or give or agree to give any commission or gift to any person known to the society, officer, servant or agent as the case may be, to have a financial interest in the disposition of any freehold or leasehold estate, or to be a servant of a person having such an interest, for any such consideration as is mentioned in the foregoing paragraph.

(2) For the purposes of this Section a person who is employed, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract of service, in connection with the disposition of any freehold or leasehold estate by a person who has a financial interest in the said disposition shall be treated, so far as relates to the disposition of that estate, as a servant of the person having the said interest unless he carries on, independently of that person, the business of a solicitor, estate agent, surveyor, or auctioneer.
(3) Where a society has a financial interest in the disposition of any freehold or leasehold estate, nothing in this Section shall prohibit—

(a)the society or any officer, servant or agent of the society, from offering or giving or agreeing to give, in relation to the disposition of that estate, any commission or gift to a servant of the society (not being a person who, to the knowledge of the society, officer, servant or agent as the case may be either himself has a financial interest in the disposition of the estate or is, in addition to being a servant of the society, also the servant of any person other than the society who has such an interest) for any such consideration as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section", or
(b)a servant of the society not being a person who himself has a financial interest in the disposition of the estate or who is, in addition to being a servant of the society, also the servant of any person other than the society who has such an interest) from receiving or agreeing to receive, in relation to the disposition of that estate, any com mission or gift from the society or from any officer, servant or agent of the society for any such consideration as aforesaid."
This is a formidable looking Amendment, but really it is a re-drafting of the Clause in the light of the prolonged discussions which took place on the very definite question of agency and the receipt of commission. The object of the Amendment is to give effect to the promise which I then made. Its primary object is to prevent a vendor of the property and a society to pay in respect of the consideration of the purchaser. We are finding an increasing tendency for persons to gain on that account. We are dealing with a matter which is very largely capable of abuse. It would not "have been introduced merely to prohibit the payment of commission by a society, and then you might have to make provision for an agency with a fee from both sides. There was also the case of the perfectly honest and straightforward estate agency who happened to be the agency for the building society, and also by reason of the fact that he was the only estate agent responsible for the disposal of the property. In the re-drafting we have drawn a distinction between the solicitor, the


estate agent and the auctioneer. We are drawing a distinction between them and that kind of person who is described as a builder's tout whom every one wants to see exorcised from this particular Clause. The House will recognise that there is a real distinction between people in a professional capacity and the tout who does no more than seek to draw a commission from both sides and performs no useful service to either. It should be noted, of course, that notwithstanding anything in the Clause the Prevention of Corruption Act remains clearly untouched.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

1.16 a.m.

Mr. Wilmot: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, to leave out from "interest," to the end of line 18.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has explained the purpose of his Amendment, which is to make it unlawful for commission to be paid to the same person by the vendor who is selling the house and the building society which is proposing to make an advance upon it. The purpose of the Amendment to the Amendment is to apply that also to persons carrying on business as solicitors, estate agents, surveyors and auctioneers. I want to put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a builder's tout may still be a builder's tout, a though he calls himself an estate agent, and, in fact, the exception which is made in this Amendment invites the same undesirable form of high pressure salesmanship by a person who might happen to call himself an estate agent, an auctioneer or by some other title. I think it is most undesirable, having regard to the widespread abuse which has come to our notice, that anybody should be in a position to have commission from both parties. We have had in mind a Clause which was passed dealing with a certain kind of building society and a certain kind of jerry-building which has given rise to this Bill. It is most undesirable that the practice should continue, and I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should accept the Amendment which I am moving.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as he probably knows, by paying £2, anybody can take out a house agent's licence. Perhaps my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment to the Amendment is not aware that it is £10 for anybody who wants to be an auctioneer. There is no test as to qualification as to what is, in my submission, a valuable profession and one which should be only in the hands of those fully qualified to carry on the profession. There is no doubt that in the past certain people calling themselves auctioneers and house agents, after paying the appropriate fee have, in collusion with building societies, engaged in practices which are not always desirable from the point of view of the house purchaser. As my hon. Friend has explained, this Amendment is designed to ensure that this practice which has prevailed in the past shall cease. We ask the Government, therefore, to accept the Amendment.

1.21 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: This, I think, would represent a direct negative of what the Sub-section seeks to do. The whole structure of the Clause, as re-modelled, is to exclude from the operation of the Clause agencies of the kind of a solicitor, estate agent and auctioneer Quite frankly, the impression I derived from the discussion in Committee was that there was a great deal of favour on all sides of the Committee for doing that, and it was recognised that there was a real distinction between the professional man and the ordinary builder's tout. I gathered that there was a general desire —to which, I admit, the hon. Gentleman was an exception all the way through—to exclude from the prohibition of the Clause both solicitors and estate agents.
There is an ordinary kind of transaction, which, I am told, is very common, where, for example, the vendor employs a local estate agent and the purchaser not infrequently comes along to the agent and asks him to put him in touch with a building society who will make an advance. The estate agent commonly does so and looks to the building society for some quite small fee for his service in the matter. In such a case nobody


is hurt. I agree that there are possibilities of evil in a situation of that kind if the person is an irresponsible person, but if he is a person who, as here, is carrying on independently the business of estate agent in the neighbourhood, that transaction is not really very susceptible to abuse. I agree that there is no statutory definition of what is an estate agent, as there is in the case of a solicitor, and that the qualifications seem to be more limited than in the case of an auctioneer. Nevertheless, you have to draw a line somewhere..

Mr. Wilmot: You have drawn it in the wrong place.

The Solicitor-General: That may be the hon. Member's view, but I do not think that on the previous occasion he carried the Committee with him, and I hope that he will not carry the House with him. As I have said, you have to draw a line somewhere, and we thought that a fair way was this: First of all you include a servant of the persons having the financial interest, and you say that people shall be treated as servants even though they have no contract of service, except in the cases where they carry on an independent business of solicitor, auctioneer, or estate agent. We think that that is a fair compromise, and I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

1.24 a.m.

Major Milner: I am bound to say that I agree with the learned Solicitor-General. I always understood that a distinction should be drawn between the builder's tout who has drawn commission and the legitimate professional man carrying on his legitimate avocation quite independently. It appears to me that the Clause does entirely what was intended by the Committee, and I think that my hon. Friend's Amendment is misconceived, except in one respect. That respect is that I also would like to see some statutory definition or description of an estate agent, surveyor and auctioneer, and indeed, of an accountant. I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) will have drawn up accounts for two parties whose interests were quite conflicting, whereas that is not necessarily the case where professional men are concerned. I would certainly welcome any Clause in the Bill,

an interpretation Clause, defining an estate agent, an auctioneer and a surveyor, and giving their qualifications for carrying on their profession. It is conceivable that some individual, by paying £2, may call himself an estate agent or an auctioneer or a surveyor, though in the latter case higher fees have to be paid. With that exception I agree with the learned Solicitor-General, who has gone a long way in trying to meet the wishes of the Committee.

1.27 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Both of my hon. Friends are really in agreement as to what we should get done. The only question is how it should be done. The difficulty about my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) is that he is such a thoroughly bona fide solicitor that he does not understand that there are some solicitors who have not got his high standard of professional honour. I want to make it clear that in moving this Amendment the general fear we had was that unless these particular words were taken out the purpose which the learned Solicitor-General had in view would be defeated. The Solicitor-General will remember that in Committee cases were brought to his notice of solicitors even solicitors in well-known firms of solicitors who, though apparently independent and having their own plates on the door and all that kind of thing—I think the Eagle Star was-given as a case in point—when a person went into a different door of the offices, of the society he was in fact going into the offices of the solicitor of the society. He said that that was really an extremely undesirable practice. It would be very difficult to argue that this particular firm of solicitors was not carrying on business independently of the society because a certain amount of their business was not with the society, although perhaps as much as nine-tenths or even 99 per cent. might be.
Even taking the most difficult case—that of the qualified solicitor—you could have the extremely undesirable practice of the purchaser actually getting advice from the firm of solicitors which was tied up to the vendor. Really that is not desirable. I think it comes within the sphere of legitimate business when it comes to a fully qualified professional man. Even in that case we do not con-


sider it desirable. When we come to the estate agent, the Solicitor-General has admitted this is really not desirable, because it does away with the whole purpose of his Clause. I think we have heard too much about the builder's foreman who is supposed to greet the prospective client and make statements which apparently, are going to be accepted by the purchaser. I do not think the builder's foreman is any trouble at all. He is not our difficulty. The person we are really out to deal with is the estate agent who, for the payment of £2 and the cost of a plate, a pair of spats and a good suit, is apparently fully qualified to advise both sides. The Committee sat for eight or nine days. I now appeal to the House as an independent jury: do you think it is desirable that estate agents should be in

a position to act for both sides? You really get scandals of a sort that the best people in the profession do themselves definitely not want. I suggest this should be left out of the Clause and we shall then get to what the Solicitor-General wants. We are really helping him. In fact the Solicitor-General has been induced to put this in, and we come from the Opposition side and save him from certain people who, I think, have not at heart the real interests of this Clause. I hope he will accept our Amendment because we shall have to carry it to a Division if he does not.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 52.

Division No. 275.]
AYES.
[1.34 a


Adam., S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Petherick, M


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fool, D. M.
Procter, Major H. A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Rankin, Sir R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Granville, E. L.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Balniel, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Salt, E. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bait, Sir A. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Selley, H, R.


Bossom, A. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Silkin, L.


Boulton, W. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Snadden, W. McN.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Somerset, T.


Boyce. H. Leslie
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hunloke, H. P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kellett, Major E. O.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P,


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Latham, Sir P.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Cook, Sir T. R, A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lucas, Major Sir J, M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hall)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Craven-Ellis, W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G-
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Critchley, A.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Crossley, A. C.
McKie, J. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


De Chair, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Markham, S. F.
Wise, A. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Milner, Major J.
York, C.


Emery, J, F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Errington, E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.



Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Evans, E. (Univ. el Wales)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Major Sir James Edmondson and


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Palmer, G. E. H.
Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benson, G.
Dobbie, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Daggar, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Bellenger, F. J.
Dalton, H.
Ede, J. C.




Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M.(Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Frankel, D.
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Parker, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Grenfell, D. R
Poole, C. C.
Watson, W. McL.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
Westwood, J.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.
Wilmot, John


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)



McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 25, leave out from "who," to "the," in line 26, and insert "contravenes."

In line 31, leave out Sub-section (3)—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE II.—[Valuation of security for advances.]

1.41 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the security to be so taken comprises any freehold or leasehold estate the adequacy of the security shall be assessed by an able practical surveyor or valuer not being a person instructed or employed, in relation to that estate, by or on behalf of any person having a financial interest in the disposition of the estate.
In moving this Amendment I want to make sure that certain practices which are not desirable should not continue. The building surveyors should be independent surveyors. We are anxious that there should not be cases of surveyors acting in such a way that while acting for the vendor on the sale of a house and receiving a commission he is also acting for purchasers through building societies in making a survey. We feel that where an estate agent has the transaction entirely in his own hands the result by reason of his making the survey is likely to be to the detriment of the purchaser. From that point of view there is every reason for having it stated, as is proposed in the Amendment, that there shall be:
an able practical surveyor or valuer not being a person instructed or employed in relation to that estate, by or on behalf of any

person having a financial interest in the disposition of the estate."

The principle is quite clear, and I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to accept it.

1.44 a.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to second the Amendment.
What we are trying to do is to raise the standard of the valuers who are to undertake the valuation of the property which it is 'desired to mortgage. In the case of many building societies they do employ an independent surveyor to value property. We want all building societies to be bound to adopt that procedure.

1.45 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: The first part of this Clause lays down that the duty of a director is to include that of satisfying himself that the arrangements for assessing the adequacy of the security, and so on, are such that it will be assessed by a competent person experienced in the matters relevant to the determination of the security. To that the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) wants to add a proviso. We think the words already in the Bill are adequate to meet the case which she has in mind. It may be desirable to raise the standard of qualifications of a valuer as of anyone in this House but I rather doubt whether a Clause in this Bill is the proper place to do it. We have in mind the principle of what the hon. Lady has stated and I ask the House not to-accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be-there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 116.

Division No. 276.]
AYES.
[1.46 a.m.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dobbie, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benson, G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Ammon, C. G.
Dalton, H.
Ede, J. C.


Bellenger, F. J.
Davies. O. (Merthyr)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)




Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, J. J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.
Watson, W. McL.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
Westwood, J.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ridley, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Wilmot, John


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton. T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)



McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, H. W.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Foot, D. M.
Procter, Major H. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Rankin, Sir R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Granville, E. L.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Balniel, Lord
Hannah, I. C.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R, E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Selley, H. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Somerset, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Howitt, Or. A. B.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hunloke, H. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hutchinson, G. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
James, Wins-Commander A. W. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Kellett, Major E. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Titchfield, Marquess Of


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Cary, R. A.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Locker-Lampion, Comdr. 0. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Clarke, Colonel R. s. (E Grinstead)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Colman, N. C. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Craven-Ellis, W.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Critchley, A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McKie, J. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


De Chair, S. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wise, A. R.


Emery, J. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Errington, E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
York, C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Evans, D, o. (Cardigan)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Palmer, G. E. H.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Furness.


Findlay, Sir E.
Petherick, M.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

1.54 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This is consequential on what was explained on Clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 1, leave out Sub-section (5)�ž [Captain Crookshank.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Notices and returns relating to sales and transfers.)

1.55 a.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18. after "notice" to insert:
stating the price at which, and the name and address of the person to whom, the estate has been sold and.

This, and the next Amendment—in page 9, line 18, after "such" insert "other"—are very reasonable Amendments—so particularly reasonable and so thoroughly modest that the Minister can very well accept them. All it means is that when sending notice to the mortgagor that a property has been sold, such notice shall state the price at which, and the name and address of the person to whom, the estate has been sold, and such other particulars as may be prescribed. As matters stand at present, those things may be put in but we want to make sure that these details—just the minimum particulars—shall be put in and that the man whose house has been sold up shall at least know what the price is and the man who has bought it. I do not think the Minister can possibly object to that.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to second the Amendment.

1.56 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am not very anxious to accept this Amendment if I can help it, but I am prepared to do so if the course that I am going to suggest does not commend itself to the House as a better one. I have already intimated that the Government would be very happy to consult with hon. Members opposite as to the form in which these notices should take and I am equally prepared to do that as regards this case. I cannot conceive of any registrar ever prescribing notices which do not give the name and address, but I do think that on the whole it is not a very desirable thing to put in one kind of particular in the Act of Parliament itself. It throws some little doubt on how much else you must put in, especially as we have the contents of Sub-section (4) which says:
 nothing in this Section affects the operation of any rule of law relating to the duty of a mortgagee to account to a mortgagor.
I would not like to see any doubt thrown on that rule by putting in words which select out of an area of things one particular detail. If the suggestion I have made commends itself to the House, we will consult with hon. Members opposite as to what should be done.

Miss Wilkinson: I am ready to accept that offer from the learned Solicitor-General. We are very anxious that at least the minimum particulars should be given. I know the difficulty and in view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 14.—(Legal proceedings.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 12, leave out "any provision of Sub-sections (4) or (5)" and insert "the provisions of Sub-section (3)."—[Captain Crook-shank.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Interpretation.)

1.58 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, to leave out "registered under" and insert:
 which is a registered society for the purposes of.
This Amendment ensures that policies issued by a friendly society under the Act of 1896 are covered by the Section.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 17, after "six" insert "seven."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(2) References in this Act to additional security—

(a) in relation to an advance made before the commencement of this Act upon the security of freehold, copyhold or leasehold estate by a society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1894, shall be construed solely as references to any security for the advance other than a mortgage, whether legal or equitable, of freehold, copyhold or leasehold estate, whether the mortgage was effected by the person to whom the advance was made or by any other person,
(b) in relation to an advance made after the commencement of this Act upon the security of freehold or leasehold estate by such a society as aforesaid, shall be construed solely as references to any security for the advance other than a mortgage, whether legal or equitable, of freehold or leasehold estate, whether the mortgage be effected by the person to whom the advance is made or by any other person.
(c) in relation to an advance made before the commencement of this Act upon the security of freehold, copyhold or leasehold estate by any such unincorporated society as is mentioned in Section seven of the Building Societies Act, 1874, shall be construed solely as references to any security for the advance other than such security by way of mortgage of freehold, copyhold or leasehold estate as the society was authorised to take into account in determining the amount of the advance by virtue of the Act of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of William the Fourth, Chapter thirty-two, intituled An Act for the Regulation of Benefit Building Societies, and
(d) in relation to an advance made after the commencement of this Act upon the security of freehold or leasehold estate by such an unincorporated society as aforesaid, shall be construed solely as references to any security for the advance other than such security by way of mortgage of freehold or leasehold estate as the society is authorised to take into account in determining the amount of the advance by virtue of the Act aforesaid."

This Amendment to the definition Clause provides that "additional security" refers to any security other than that which a society is already, under existing legislation, authorised to take into account in determining the amount of the advance. I do not think there is any real doubt about it, but in some quarters it has been suggested that Section 13 of the Act of 1874 does not


make it entirely clear as to whether under the existing provisions of the law legal and equitable mortgages may be taken for this purpose. It is to remove all doubts arising under the Section as to it doubts arising under the Section as to this matter before and after the corn-incorporated societies and the few which are still unincorporated—a type of society which is pretty well obsolete now.

Amendment agreed to.

2.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, leave out from "Scotland" to the end of line 28, and insert:
(a) for any reference to the Minister of Health there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State;
(b for Sub-section (3) of Section six of this Act the following Sub-section shall be substituted—
(3) In this Section the expression "court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff court.
The first paragraph of this Amendment is made necessary by the insertion in the Bill of Clause 4 in Committee and the second paragraph (b) enables an application under the Clause to be made either to the Court of Session or to the Sheriff Court irrespective of whether the amount advanced was £500 or any other figure.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17. —(Short title, citation, construction and extent.)

2.2 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, leave out "October" and insert "November"
This is the date of the coming into operation of the Act. As it now stands it is October, but on further consideration we have decided to make it November, as all the documents required can hardly be done by that time.

Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE. —(Part II—Requirements applicable to certain continuing arrangements.)

Amendments made:

In page 16, line 19, leave out "the."

In line 20, leave out "aforesaid" and insert "of the said purchase price." —[Captain Crookshank.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Four Minutes after Two o'Clock